Senators still demand user fees

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:27 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote in . com:

Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?

I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
Was it:

Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.


Perhaps people don't like what baby Bush has to say, because of his
mendacity and bias toward big pharmaceutical companies, big oil
companies, and non-competitive contractors, not to mention his
irrational religious bias.

--


"There ought to be limits to freedom."
- George W. Bush, May, 1999


According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to
strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the
problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the
elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

Ridiculous, it is.

http://www.avgroup.com/propilot_atc.pdf

http://www.reason.org/ps358.pdf

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

http://www.reason.org/ps347_business_jets_atc.pdf

It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups with a
vested interest.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?

I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
Was it:

Kennedy? Nope
Johnson? Nope
Nixon? Nope
Ford? Yep - but he was appointed.
Carter? Yep -- but no one liked what he said.
Reagan? Yep -- but only if it was good news.
Bush I? Yep -- but booted after one term.
Clinton? Nope
Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.

As you can see, the straight talkers aren't very popular with the
unwashed masses. Perhaps it's because no one wants to hear the truth
from their leaders, preferring the smoothly reassuring upbeat tones of
Reagan over the lectures of Jimmy Carter?

I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
running for office in my life.

You should do some digging into the presidential elections in the late
1800's.

"Neil Gould" wrote:

Well, it seems that even you are discounting the few candidates that are
straight-talkers. If you really want such a person, then there are a few
to choose from; on the Democratic side there's Dennis Kucinich, and on the
Republican side there's Ron Paul. Both are pretty much dismissed by the
masses, washed or otherwise.

Both good guys, as politicians go.

Their biggest problem is that they don't toe their parties' lines. That
makes them outsiders as far as their parties are concerned, so the masses
don't hear much from them.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:49:15 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting, TheSmokingGnu
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
Bloody hypocrites:
"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."

If by "modernization" they mean "pay more and fly less", then ****
modernization. The system works now. Just because the big airlines find
themselves consistently outpaced by smaller and newer competitors
doesn't make the best solution taxation of a community admittedly unable
or unwilling to pay.

I've been thinking that user fees might not be a bad idea, just make sure
that those who are paying for the system are the ones who get the most
benefit from it. A flat per-gallon fuel tax that everybody pays the same
regardless of flight intent. Add an ATC/IFR fee based on souls onboard
times miles flown[1]. And all non-commercial flights are exempt.

Or have I got it all wrong again?

-Scott

[1] Any spin doctor should be able to make a hell of a case in support of
this...after all, if the airlines *really* wanted to keep their passengers
safe from harm, why wouldn't they be willing to pay for use of the system
that keeps them from crashing into each other in the air?

It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups with
a vested interest.

You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested interest
or bias of some sort? Why else would the first article start with citing
the problem of congested airports but call that an ATC issue? That's
misdirection; simple literary dishonesty.

The second simply says essentially "there's evidence that we're right" w/o
citing any.

The third speaks to a funding problem. Yet the GAO disagrees, according
to testimony by Gerald Dillingham. Calvin Scovel of the DOT agrees with
that testimony.

The forth, in part 3, commits the same act (though admittedly it is merely
citing FAA staffers with their own biases and vested interests).

More, the fact that the airlines are apparently able to exploit this
process to try to achieve yet another tax break (despite the claimed
issue being an FAA cash shortfall) makes it clear that the process is
biased and therefore flawed (and pretty much congressional business as
usual).

- Andrew

On Jul 12, 8:40 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in messagenews:9bhd93ls26d94v5llhh5ghh81jhtkg1op7@4ax .com...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56:15 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...712senate.html

Bloody hypocrites:

"Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
corporate jets," said aviation subcommittee Chairman John D.
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
"If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

And while neither Rockefeller nor Lott mentioned that S.1300 would
eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
pay, it didn't slip past Roberts or Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)

"I don't think that giving the airlines a tax break is the best
way to start modernization," said Roberts.

Sen. Bingaman questioned, with all that the FAA was trying to
accomplish, "why would you eliminate the fuel tax on the
airlines?"

And while Sen. Lott chastised most of the aviation community for
being unwilling to pay more, Sen. Roberts said that wasn't the
case for GA.

"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."

UPS has paid for ADS-B setups in many of their planes and they are already reaping the benefits of the reduced fuel
consumption, etc. There is no reason the other majors cannot do their own modernization also.

Most of the ADS-B requires very little FAA ATC and puts control with the flight crew. I for one am NOT willing to give
more taxes to the bureaucracy to they can blow it all on some boondoggle 'modernization' system. We do not need more
traffic controllers, we need more airports in more cities to relieve the congestion at the major hubs. ABS-B should be
implemented now, not later, and except for the equipment cost in the airplane, it can be basically cost free...

My understanding is that UPS' equipage is 1090 (extended squitter)
which requires comms with the ground segment. I believe there are
still some implementations in use (East Coast) that use UAT which
supports air-to-air comms.

Regards,
Jon

Recently, Dan Luke posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:

Well, it seems that even you are discounting the few candidates that
are straight-talkers. If you really want such a person, then there
are a few to choose from; on the Democratic side there's Dennis
Kucinich, and on the Republican side there's Ron Paul. Both are
pretty much dismissed by the masses, washed or otherwise.

Both good guys, as politicians go.

Their biggest problem is that they don't toe their parties' lines.
That makes them outsiders as far as their parties are concerned, so
the masses don't hear much from them.

As I see it, "their biggest problem" is OUR biggest problem. Both parties
are warped beyond any practical use as far as tackling the most pertinent
issues of our time. Anyone that toes their parties' line, whether it be
Republican catering to religious radicals or Democratic notions of walking
away from the messes we created, should be rejected out of hand.

The discussion of user fees reflects an effort to maintain the status-quo,
where corporate interests trump those of the general public. The rhetoric
supporting fees exposes the disdain that politicians hold for us, as they
presume that we are too stupid to see through their ploys. Yet, the
"opposition" is too weak to force the real issues onto the table for an
honest discussion. And, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that these
same folks get re-elected.

Neil
"I've seen the enemy, and they is US" - Pogo

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news

It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups
with
a vested interest.

You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested interest
or bias of some sort?

What in\terest would that be?


Why else would the first article start with citing
the problem of congested airports but call that an ATC issue? That's
misdirection; simple literary dishonesty.

Maybe the fact there's no fees for landing during peak timeslots has
something to do with that? Maybe if you dig a bit you find that's a mjor
tenent of his proposal?


The second simply says essentially "there's evidence that we're right" w/o
citing any.

Could you poin that one out?


The third speaks to a funding problem. Yet the GAO disagrees, according
to testimony by Gerald Dillingham. Calvin Scovel of the DOT agrees with
that testimony.


The FAA Funding Crunch--One More Time

Is there or isn't there a looming budget shortfall that could impede timely
implementation of the $20 billion NextGen system? Advocates of the status
quo-both in Congress and among the general aviation alphabet groups-say
there isn't. The FAA and others, such as your editor, maintain that there
is. The most recent round in this back and forth was a letter from the
Government Accountability Office, in response to a question from the House
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee (www.gao.gov/new.items/d07918r.pdf).
GAO's Gerald Dillingham told the members that "the current FAA funding
structure can provide sufficient funding for NextGen-with some caveats."
Dillingham relied mostly on a projection made last fall by the Congressional
Budget Office, which projected future aviation excise tax revenues through
2016.



That, unfortunately, is an incomplete and misleading picture. I wrote about
that CBO projection last fall (issue #38), after talking with the CBO
analysts who prepared it. As I'd suspected, they did a simple projection of
the aviation tax revenues, assuming that they grow slightly faster than
inflation and GDP, based on historic relations between air travel and
economic growth. What that ignores is structural changes in air
transportation, discussed in last fall's GAO report on the same subject
(GAO-06-1114T) and in FAA's justification for its funding reform proposal. A
fundamental disconnect exists between the drivers of aviation tax revenue
(the number of passengers carried and the average ticket price) and the ATC
system's annual cost (driven by workload, based on the growth in air
traffic). As the same total number of people gets carried in more, smaller
units (RJs instead of 737s, air taxis and fractionals instead of airliners,
etc.), traffic grows faster than passengers, and therefore costs grow faster
than revenue. It is this structural disconnect that threatens the ability to
afford NextGen.



The Congressional Research Service pointed this out last fall in their
background report, "Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration:
Background and Issues for Congress," Oct. 18, 2006. In the section on
Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues (p. 13), CRS points out that the "FAA
sees little prospect of a major increase in revenue from the trust fund's
existing tax and fee system," and that "The FAA position is supported by the
Department of Treasury estimates that suggest that annual revenue increases
to the trust fund in the years ahead will be modest." (U.S. Treasury, Office
of Tax Analysis, "Airport and Airway Trust Fund: FY2007 Mid-Session Review,
Current Law Baseline," Summer 2006).



Status-quo defenders also like to claim that the existing aviation excise
tax structure has provided stable and predictable funding. Guess again.
What's most relevant in looking at NextGen funding is FAA's capital budget,
called "Facilities and Equipment." I went back and got F&E figures from
FY1992 through 2006 and adjusted them for inflation. Over that time period,
the real value has bounced around from a low of $2.4 billion (1998) to a
high of $3.5 billion (1992). We're also told not to worry because Congress
can always supplement FAA's budget by adding general funding. CRS looked at
that, over the period FY1997-FY2006, finding that the general fund
contribution varied enormously, from as high as 38% (1997) to as low as 0%
(2000) and 8% (2002)-not exactly stable and predictable. The DOT Office of
Inspector General has seconded this point. In a report last fall on FAA
management questions, it said that it's "extremely difficult, if not
impossible" to predict future government appropriations and general fund
contributions.



Unfortunately, although both GAO and FAA have done a good job of explaining
the "fundamental disconnect" between revenues and costs, neither has
produced a budget projection based on that disconnect. That leaves the naïve
CBO projection as the baseline for discussion-and a handy rack for defenders
of the status quo to hang their hats on.



The forth, in part 3, commits the same act (though admittedly it is merely
citing FAA staffers with their own biases and vested interests).

More, the fact that the airlines are apparently able to exploit this
process to try to achieve yet another tax break (despite the claimed
issue being an FAA cash shortfall) makes it clear that the process is
biased and therefore flawed (and pretty much congressional business as
usual).

It's the airlines funding model that he explicitly rejects.

Try again.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Neil Gould" wrote:

Well, it seems that even you are discounting the few candidates that are
straight-talkers. If you really want such a person, then there are a few
to choose from; on the Democratic side there's Dennis Kucinich, and on
the
Republican side there's Ron Paul. Both are pretty much dismissed by the
masses, washed or otherwise.

Both good guys, as politicians go.

Their biggest problem is that they don't toe their parties' lines. That
makes them outsiders as far as their parties are concerned, so the masses
don't hear much from them.

The most Coummunistic guy in Congress and a borderline anarchist: hooo boy,
you're tastes are incredible.