$16,619.85

Mxsmanic wrote:

[]
Europeans have a stronger sense of social stratification and inherited
entitlement, so only the nobles are expected or permitted privileges such as
flying their own aircraft.

Rubbish. My high school maths teacher had her own aircraft- a 4 seater
cessna. She flew me and another school friend from Dundee to Orkney once
so we could make it for a playing gig- plus a day trip to Shetland from
there.

Maybe you should get out of your miserable Parisien "chambre de bonne"
and talk with real people for a change? Maybe go to a local airfield?
You'd realise quite quickly that your suggestion above is risible, and
it might help you stop projecting your own pitiful financial
circumstances onto everyone else around you.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

Mxsmanic wrote:

Tina writes:

Your statement would be a huge surprise to my 'commoner' UK friends
who own their own airplanes.

The UK has some of the sharpest social stratification in Europe.

Which is irrelevant. Why not amuse this newsgroup with your knowledge of
the UK- in particular the various English 'tones' which visitors to the
country must learn? On the other hand, don't bother...

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
I think a few are used for gliderports, and of course a few are used
commercially (Stansted, I think) and others are used for the RAF. There
were an awful lot of themm.

The RAF seem to be scaling things down quite a bit recently. I know of at
least one RAF base that is now run as a civilian operation evenings and
weekends. Also, there's an airfield near where I'm based that is used
primarily for gliders these days (although they do accept powered traffic
too I understand). In fact, that's where I did my first few PFL practices

Andy

In article ,
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it
would be fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's
existence.

What subsidies?

What revenues do they get? Do they run at a loss?

? I'm included in what people refer to as "GA" and I don't get revenue
from flying. I fly because I love flying.

It would seem that you are implying that any company doing business
in GA would require subsidies in order to not run at a loss. Is that what
you are trying to say?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Dallas" wrote in message
...

As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it would be
fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's existence.


I spent a lot if time trying to convince skylune that this was simply not
true.

I fly from a privately owned field. He does not qualify for gubmint
subsidies. He's making a profit.

4.3NM away is a class D airport with a 7000' runway and a 5000' crosswind
runway. The big airport spends over three million dollars a year salaries,
maintenance, repairs, etc. They have been trying to attract an airline, but
keep failing. The last air carrier that flew there lasted nine months.

Because there is no airline service there, claims are made that the three
million dollars is supporting GA.

I still cannot fathom how the politicians can continue paying twenty five
people to work at an airport that has no air carrier.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article ,
Dallas wrote:

As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it
would be fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's
existence.
What subsidies?

What revenues do they get? Do they run at a loss?

There isn't a single mode of transportation: airline, GA, rail, bus,
personal auto, in this country (and most) that doesn't operate with
some form of massive government subsidy.

On 2008-01-04, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
"Steve Foley" wrote in
:

I fly from a privately owned field. He does not qualify for gubmint
subsidies. He's making a profit.

How? What does he sell and how much does it cost?

When I lived in Houston, I was also based at a private field which far
from receiving subsidies - paid over $6000 in property taxes per month.

What they sold: Fuel and rent. They sold Jet-A and avgas, as well as
renting premesis (hangar space, workshops for mechanics, buildings for
a flight school, ground rent for the flying club, tiedowns). It was all
GA, no airline service at all. Most of the based aircraft were piston
powered: there was one jet - a small Lear, and one turboprop - a Jetprop
DLX Malibu conversion. Everything else was the typical GA piston fleet,
mostly singles and some light twins.

They were profitable (not wildly so - it had to be carefully managed to
remain in the black - but profitable, nonetheless). The
airfield never took a cent of public money through its lifetime.
Unfortunately, after 9-11, the middle Eastern owners decided that being
middle Eastern and in the airport business wasn't good, especially when
a property developer offered them top dollar for the land to put houses
on.

Hangarage was competitive with the subsidised airfields in Houston, as
was their fuel. (Having said that, hangarage was relatively expensive
all over the area: at the moment, if there WAS a hangar available, I
could get a hangar at Ronaldsway, an airport here with frequent airline
service, plus the flat rate annual fee for landings for slightly less than what
I was paying for hangarage in Houston at a pure GA airfield).

It is entirely possible for a GA airport to run without subsidy. Most of
the really expensive things you need such as control towers, ATC, and
fancy approaches, elaborate security, are needed for airlines; GA can
live quite happily without them.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Steve Foley" wrote in
:

I fly from a privately owned field. He does not qualify for gubmint
subsidies. He's making a profit.

How? What does he sell and how much does it cost?

I pay a tie-down fee of $50/month, and I'm paying $4.50/gallon for fuel
(self-serve). The runway was paved in 1987. He's finished paying the
mortgage for that. There are twenty-five planes based there, so he's
collecting $1200/month in tie-down fees. He owns the land free and clear.
The place is pretty low maintenance. The tie-down areas are grass, except
where people have poured concrete pads. He's got a tractor to mow the lawn
with every other week or so in the summer. He also has an old highway plow
truck for the runway in the winter. Anyone with a plow on their truck shows
up to help out with the taxiways.

He's also an A&P/IA, and handles most of the aircraft maintenance/annuals on
the field. A few go elsewhere, but he's probably doing an average of two
annuals per month. A few people come in from elsewhere because they like his
work.

He recently gave up flight instruction. A guy who also instructed part time
retired from his full time job. He now does all of the instructing.

The runway is under 2000 feet long, so there is no commercial activity
(except flight instruction and the few photo flights). The pavement is not
thick enough to handle any large aircraft, so it didn't cost too much.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article ,
Dallas wrote:

As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it
would be fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's
existence.
What subsidies?

What revenues do they get? Do they run at a loss?


Fuel Tax. Federal book keeping is way to fouled up to know.

Steve Foley wrote:
"Dallas" wrote in message
...
As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it would be
fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's existence.


I spent a lot if time trying to convince skylune that this was simply not
true.

I fly from a privately owned field. He does not qualify for gubmint
subsidies. He's making a profit.

4.3NM away is a class D airport with a 7000' runway and a 5000' crosswind
runway. The big airport spends over three million dollars a year salaries,
maintenance, repairs, etc. They have been trying to attract an airline, but
keep failing. The last air carrier that flew there lasted nine months.

Because there is no airline service there, claims are made that the three
million dollars is supporting GA.

I still cannot fathom how the politicians can continue paying twenty five
people to work at an airport that has no air carrier.



I can't either. ELD has scheduled service and only 2 employees. The
money the local government spends would be much better spent either
lobbying their congresscritter for EAS subsidy or just paying the 3
million a year to an airline.