GA User fees

Skylune, in a different, way OT thread, intones...
It kinda reminds me of AOPA logic. For example, user fees: they argue
simultaneously that (1) GA uses very few FAA services and therefore user
fees are not necessary and (2) user fees would impose a ruinous financial
burden on the GA industry and reduce safety (because pilots might be less
inclined to use ATC, flight following, etc.) This is weird and
disingenous reasoning.

Why is this disingenuous reasoning? (specifically I ask about the
reasoning part, not whether either of the premises are independently
true or false). It is quite possible for (1) and (2) to be both true at
the same time.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose: Why is this disingenuous reasoning? (specifically I ask about
the

reasoning part, not whether either of the premises are independently
true or false). It is quite possible for (1) and (2) to be both true at
the same time.

Jose

If there is a charge for a specific service, and that service is not
used,
you will not be subject to the charge.

However, since GA is in reality a heavy user of FAA capital
infrastructure
( such as towers, runways, Belfort systems, etc.) as well as operating
infrastructure (FSDOs, tower personnel, etc.) the charges would in
reality
be higher than the pittance(*) paid in AV gas taxes.

*See the FAA website for info on the aviation trust fund, and what
sources
contribute how much.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Jose: Why is this disingenuous reasoning? (specifically I ask about
the

reasoning part, not whether either of the premises are independently
true or false). It is quite possible for (1) and (2) to be both true
at the same time.

Jose

-------------------Begin Skylune text ----------------------------
Skylune continues to show he is internet illiterate and does not
know how to post, or operate a newsreader.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


If there is a charge for a specific service, and that service is not
used, you will not be subject to the charge.

However, since GA is in reality a heavy user of FAA capital
infrastructure ( such as towers, runways, Belfort systems, etc.) as
well as operating infrastructure (FSDOs, tower personnel, etc.) the
charges would in reality be higher than the pittance(*) paid in AV
gas taxes.

*See the FAA website for info on the aviation trust fund, and what
sources contribute how much.


If you are going to say "See the FAA website" as an argumentative support
point you need to provide the specific link, and explanation as to how that
link supports your view.

by "Tom Conner" Dec 21, 2005 at 03:09 PM



-------------------Begin Skylune text ----------------------------
Skylune continues to show he is internet illiterate and does not
know how to post, or operate a newsreader.
-------------------------------------------------------------------




*See the FAA website for info on the aviation trust fund, and what
sources contribute how much.


If you are going to say "See the FAA website" as an argumentative support
point you need to provide the specific link, and explanation as to how
that
link supports your view.

1. Internet illiterate? Not really, though I wouldn't consider myself a
webmaster type. I choose to use talkabout.net rather than Outlook Express
or other newsreaders. When you use this site and hit the "reply" button,
it doesn't automatically copy the original post.

2. Since you are apparently too internet illiterate to find the relevant
FAA data, I will post it AGAIN, just for your edification.

Now, when you get to the website, you will need to open the excel
spreadsheet showing historical funding trends for the aviation trust fund.
Assuming you get this far, you will see that in fiscal 2004, the Trust
Fund received a total of $9.6 billion. Of that total, $0.04 billion came
from "noncommercial aviation gas taxes."

I revise my opinion that GA AV gases provide a "pittance." It is much
less than a pittance. I stand by my OPINION (shared by the Reason
Foundation, the ATA, and others) that GA is a very heavily subsidized
industry. AOPA knows this, but chooses to make absurd and disingenous
arguments to contend otherwise.

An honest assessment would begin with the expenses GA requires (capital as
well as operating), and compare that to the fees/taxes paid in by the
users. Of course they can't do this, because it would show the obvious.


Skylune out.

1. Internet illiterate? Not really

You've gotten better, but a two easy steps would go a long way towards
making your posts easier to read. First is to properly surround your
quote so that it is easy to identify. What you need to be readable is
that after the quote, ON A SEPARATE LINE, put two "less than" signs.
You already have it but it's not on a separate line, so it's hard to
tell at a glance from the rest of the post. Put it on its own line, and
the eye can just travel down the margin and find where you end.

Second is to be selective in what you quote, for two reasons - first is
clarity, and second is to avoid selecting a signature (because anything
after a signature is hidden in some readers, and that will hide the
point you are trying to make afterwards!)

It still won't be internet standard, but it will at least be legible.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Tom Conner wrote:
If you are going to say "See the FAA website" as an argumentative support
point you need to provide the specific link, and explanation as to how that
link supports your view.



The numbers are from he
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ices/aep/aatf/

Scroll down to "Status of AATF (from FAA’s Budget in Brief)" and open
"2006 Budget (MS Excel) (2004 Actual)". The numbers quoted are from
the 2004 column.

It would have been nice if the 'lune posted the link, but then he has
not done it before. Why start now.

As for using Outlook or Thunderbird.......save your breath (or typing).




Thunderbird user who understands message filtering and "Ignore Thread"
setting.

by Steve A Dec 21, 2005 at 11:05 AM

It would have been nice if the 'lune posted the link, but then he has
not done it before. Why start now.

In fact, I have posted the link several times in the past. Since you
already did the work for the person that chooses to just go with the AOPA
company line, rather than looking at the other data, I'll point to another
FAA report that also contains GA usage data, as well as the micro-pittance
(0.4%) of GA AV gas taxes relative to total taxes. Here it is, see esp.
p. 17.



http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ta_Package.pdf


Again, the John Adams quote: "Facts are stubborn things..."

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by Steve A Dec 21, 2005 at 11:05 AM

It would have been nice if the 'lune posted the link, but then he has
not done it before. Why start now.

In fact, I have posted the link several times in the past. Since you
already did the work for the person that chooses to just go with the AOPA
company line, rather than looking at the other data, I'll point to another
FAA report that also contains GA usage data, as well as the micro-pittance
(0.4%) of GA AV gas taxes relative to total taxes. Here it is, see esp.
p. 17.




http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ta_Package.pdf


Thanks. You should post a reference link every time you use it to support a
point, if you want to have at least some credibility. Expecting people to
review all your past posts to find a link is not very reasonable.

Skylune wrote:
In fact, I have posted the link several times in the past.

I stand corrected on link posting. Still, it would be helpful to some.
OK, it would have been helpful to me. I suspect others would have found
it useful too.

Since you already did the work for the person that chooses to just go with the AOPA
company line, rather than looking at the other data.......

Not sure how you take Tom's post as choosing to "just go with the AOPA
party line" since he was asking where the information was, and how it
supported your opinion. Both seem like a reasonable questions to me.

Again, the John Adams quote: "Facts are stubborn things..."

If by facts you mean the budget and expense numbers from FAA data, the
debate is not over the those. It is over whether the FAA funding
mechanism is fair.....and everyone involved defines fair in their own way.


"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please." Mark Twain

If there is a charge for a specific service, and that service is not
used, you will not be subject to the charge.

However, since GA is in reality a heavy user of FAA capital
infrastructure...

First, I asked about your =reasoning=, not about the premises
themselves. You responded with the premises. First, to deal with that:

The flaw is:
1: the use that GA makes of some of the services is because they are
mandated, not because they are needed.
2: the infrastructure does not really benefit the GA aircraft that are
using it - at least not to the extent that it benefits other parties.

Consider Bogus Internal Airport (BIA). It's a small field, GA has been
using it for years with no tower, and no real services. So, I should
not pay (much) in user fees to land my Archer there. However,
Humongougs Airlines Incorporated decides that it would make the perfect
gateway to Lesser Paradise, a little island that is growing in
popularity. To do so, the runway is lengthened and a tower is added.
None of this benefits me. Now the airspace is class D and communication
is required. I have to buy a radio with my own money, but the reason is
to accomodate Humongous Airlines, not to accomodate me. Every time I
take off, I would pay a user fee for this new long concrete runway and
the spanking new tower, and the fees for transmitting on the radio, and
I'd use more gas because my flight path has changed to keep me out of
the way of the approaching jets which don't interest me in the
slightest, except that I would be a bug splat on their windshield.

I fly out of there and do touch and goes. They have five flights a day
and are in discussions with three another airline for connecting flights.

I'm a "heavy user" of this infrastructure because I use the concrete and
the tower and the radio EVERY TIME I go around the pattern, but I'm not
really a beneficiary of it. It wasn't put there for me. The airlines
are benefitting from the infrastructure, and from the procedures
designed to keep me away from their windshield. Now, while I also
benefit by not becoming a bug splat, that benefit is more like the
benefit of stopping hitting my head with a hammer.

Granted, the airport is ficticious, but the principle is valid.

Now, on to my original question, which related to your =reasoning=, not
the truth (or falsity) of the premises.

You posted words to the effect that iit is disengenuous to think that both
(1) GA uses few services...
and
(2) user fees would be prohibitively expensive.
could be true at the same time.

They can certainly both be true at the same time, depending on how "uses
services" is defined, and how user fees are allocated.

It is disingenuous to think that, given the political clout of GA vs the
airlines, these definitions would not be skewed in their favor, in the
same way that flying was restored to the harmless airliners shortly
after 9-11 while spam cans were still banned from the skys (and are even
today virtually banished from the capitol, where, granted, there is so
much hot air you don't really need an airplane to fly!)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.