Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

Larry Dighera wrote:
That's why Robert Poole's duplicitous assertion about it being
inappropriate for FAA to fund improvements at smaller, non airline,
airports is a deliberate, sensationalized, sound-bite attempt to
mislead the lay public. That arrogant, propaganda spewing, jerk needs
to be exposed for the fraud he and his Reason Foundation are.
http://www.reason.org/airtraffic/



It might be tasteless of me to make the comment but I can't help but think that
the campaign to impugn general aviation in the press just got superceded by
yesterday's tragic events in Blacksburg. I further would be willing to bet that
it will be difficult for them to get this particular train back on the track. I
can't say I was sorry (about the campaign; not Blacksburg).

I was greeted with a front page headline yesterday in the Charlotte Observer
whining about how general aviation leeches off airline passengers. Now, rather
than respond to it in the editorial pages, I think I'll just let it die a
natural death.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/122/story/87007.html



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote

I was greeted with a front page headline yesterday in the Charlotte
Observer whining about how general aviation leeches off airline
passengers. Now, rather than respond to it in the editorial pages, I
think I'll just let it die a natural death.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/122/story/87007.html

That has to be one of the most bogus pieces of tripe I have ever read. It
even contradicts itself several times.

Amazing.
--
Jim in NC

Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

It might be tasteless of me to make the comment but I can't help but think that
the campaign to impugn general aviation in the press just got superceded by
yesterday's tragic events in Blacksburg. I further would be willing to bet that
it will be difficult for them to get this particular train back on the track. I
can't say I was sorry (about the campaign; not Blacksburg).

Just hope that the gunman was not also a student pilot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

So, do the fees collected by the commercial airlines through their
fares and then paid to various agencies completely cover the costs of
building and operating airports and the air traffic control system?

Nope..

denny

On 17 Apr 2007 08:09:29 -0700 Paul kgyy wrote:

: One of the phenoms in the US large metro areas are airports completely
: devoted to general aviation, and serving large numbers of corporate and
: "executive charter) a/c, many of them small jets. That's where a big chunk
: of federal subsidy goes, of little benefit to the traveling public.

:There's a substantial benefit to the traveling public. If every GA
:flight that landed within 100 miles of LAX would start landing at LAX,
:you'd have gridlock at the airport and on the ground (as if they don't
:already).

I would bet that the number of GA flights would be reduced since the LAX
landing fees are much higher.

Also, there are a few real airports within 100 miles.

:I get really tired of hearing people beat up on the corporate jet
:set. These are people who create jobs for the rest of us.

As long as they pay their true cost.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

Just get to the point rather than repeatedly asking arsine rhetorical
questions.

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Mxsmanic) wrote in
:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic
control system?

If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial
aviation.

For the most part, that is called fares.

How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the airports
and air traffic control system other than through fees that are
included in those fares?

Significants parts of the fares go to expenses like landing fees
and leases.

And do those "significant parts" cover the cost of building and
operating the airports and air traffic control system?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more
governments,
and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments.

I think that you may have exagerated that slightly.

Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by
itself,

And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

I don't think anyone doubts that at all.

The big maarket for the A380 will almost certainly be the Far East where
very large numbers of people want to fly reasonably large distances and
economic expantion will allow them to do so very soon.

We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
phenominal rates.

It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
governments spy on foreign competitors, every sound business decision is
overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be
operated
without government interference.

What US company operates without government interference?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

(Barney Rubble) wrote in
:

Just get to the point rather than repeatedly asking arsine
rhetorical questions.

What makes you think my question was rhetorical?

If the OP had simply answered the question directly, the thread would
have stopped at one.


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Mxsmanic) wrote in
:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover
the costs of building and operating airports and the air
traffic control system?

If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial
aviation.

For the most part, that is called fares.

How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the
airports and air traffic control system other than through fees
that are included in those fares?

Significants parts of the fares go to expenses like landing fees
and leases.

And do those "significant parts" cover the cost of building and
operating the airports and air traffic control system?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:57:48 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

hummingbird writes:

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more governments,
and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments. You don't see that
kind of incest in the U.S., which is one reason why the U.S. has a healthier
economy.

That is entirely untrue. Remind me of how many of Bush's first cabinet
had direct links to big oil and/or the Jewish Lobby and/or Israel. I
often wonder why the American people have handed over their govt
to Israel.

I am no advocate of Euro business because it does co-operate with govt
far too much IMHO, especially the banks. The EU Tax Directive was
one very good example which effectively killed off private offshore
banking without so much as a whimper.

But for sure, big money and govt are much closer in bed in the US
than in Europe or any other part of the world. American foreign policy
is known to have a huge commercial element behind it. Then of course
there's the Jewish Lobby...and MS's new found friendship with the
music/film industry reflected in Vista DRM controls.

By the original definition of fascism, the US is much closer to it
than any other major western nation.


Your speculation above sounds like a rather farfetched conspiracy theory.
Building an entire infrastructure to please a single private company? I don't
think so. My guess is that the two notions are completely independent.

That may be so. But it's been long alleged that the US fed govt
overpays Boeing for its military planes as an indirect subsidy to
Boeing's commercial plane business. Long ago, it was the fed govt
who helped to kill off Concorde to protect US aircraft plane makers
using the lame excuse of noise etc.
The US fed govt also heavily subsidies American agricultural industry
despite its frequent claims to want free markets and free competiton.
Ask the rice farmers of Ghana.


Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by itself,
and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

ISTR that Boeing's Execs have had their fair share of chaos and
corruption in recent times.

Clearly there is a strong difference between Boeing and Airbus as to
how they see the plane market developing and I would expect the fed
govt to do whatever it can to support Boeing's direction.

I don't think the A380 was intended for the US domestic market.
Those two big economies in Asia are where the growing market is...


But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics.

It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
governments spy on foreign competitors,

ISTR that it was Boeing who used the fed's Echelon satellite spy
system to spy on Airbus contract negotiations some while ago.
Apart from that, industrial espionage goes on by all countries.


every sound business decision is
overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be operated
without government interference.

You have an unreal view of Europe. Yes, it is becoming a totalitarian
nightmare of Orwellian proportions but the US is also not far behind.
American people have surrendered freedom in return for security -
but will get neither.

I make these comments not because I am anti-American but because
America used to be the only place where freedom and liberty still
existed and there was still hope for mankind.....

Larry Dighera wrote:
That's why Robert Poole's duplicitous assertion about it being
inappropriate for FAA to fund improvements at smaller, non airline,
airports is a deliberate, sensationalized, sound-bite attempt to
mislead the lay public. That arrogant, propaganda spewing, jerk needs
to be exposed for the fraud he and his Reason Foundation are.
http://www.reason.org/airtraffic/

Ah, Larry, the escapee from a looney asylum, who had long ago gone through a
complete mental meltdown...

Read his justification.

Or just keep bitching for the next couple generations.