AOPA talking rubbish

"Chris" wrote in message ...
:
: "Matt Whiting" wrote in message
:
: Its on the same scale as saying all Americans are rednecks.
:
:


But that is true, too!

Chris wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Chris" wrote:


"Jose" wrote in message
...

You think that only 5% or so of
the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?

As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
provides the benefit.


The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...

...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of
at
the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Jose

Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to
take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
should
GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
involved -
smells of pork bellies:-)

Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).


GA on welfare from the taxpayer again

Very few things related to transportation or most anything else for that
matter are any different than GA. Look at the subsidies that mass
transit gets in the cities.


Matt

Very few things related to transportation or most anything else for that
matter are any different than GA. Look at the subsidies that mass
transit gets in the cities.

Look indeed. Iowa City's bus system gets enough tax subsidies -- $2
million annually -- to buy each rider a used car, EVERY YEAR.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Look indeed. Iowa City's bus system gets enough tax subsidies -- $2
million annually -- to buy each rider a used car, EVERY YEAR.

I don't know how it is in Iowa City, but if everyone who was riding the
busses in NYC took to their cars, the present drivers would be quite
unhappy. I'd say that it is in the driver's best interest to subsidize
the busses, that is, if they want to go anywhere.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
...
You think that only 5% or so of
the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?

As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
provides the benefit.

The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...

...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of
at
the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Jose

Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to
take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
should
GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
involved -
smells of pork bellies:-)

Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).

GA on welfare from the taxpayer again

GA making use of costly facilities that Philistine like "Chris" would
otherwise destroy!

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Very few things related to transportation or most anything else for that
matter are any different than GA. Look at the subsidies that mass
transit gets in the cities.

Look indeed. Iowa City's bus system gets enough tax subsidies -- $2
million annually -- to buy each rider a used car, EVERY YEAR.

Look at Portland's multi $$$billion fiasco
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4908

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
...
You think that only 5% or so of
the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?

As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
provides the benefit.

The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of
GA
airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...

...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead
of
at
the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Jose

Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting
to
take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
should
GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the
economic
growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
involved -
smells of pork bellies:-)

Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).

GA on welfare from the taxpayer again

GA making use of costly facilities that Philistine like "Chris" would
otherwise destroy!
Not destroy, put them to the market. If the airports can make money
providing services to pilots them let them do so. If pilots want the
services they would use the airports. Poor services would dies and good
services would flourish.

Is this not free enterprise?

In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
...
You think that only 5% or so of
the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?

As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
provides the benefit.

The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of
GA
airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...

...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead
of
at
the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Jose

Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting
to
take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
should
GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the
economic
growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
involved -
smells of pork bellies:-)

Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).

GA on welfare from the taxpayer again

GA making use of costly facilities that Philistine like "Chris" would
otherwise destroy!
Not destroy, put them to the market. If the airports can make money
providing services to pilots them let them do so. If pilots want the
services they would use the airports. Poor services would dies and good
services would flourish.

Is this not free enterprise?

Then, let's stop funding bicycle lanes (in the SF Bay area they get far
more than small airports), parks, golf courses, marinas, sports stadia,
etc. Put them all on the same level and create a vast, dull,
inhospitable place to live.

"Chris" wrote in message ...
snip

: Not destroy, put them to the market. If the airports can make money
: providing services to pilots them let them do so. If pilots want the
: services they would use the airports. Poor services would dies and good
: services would flourish.
:
: Is this not free enterprise?
:
:

Actually, not in my opinion. This is on the level of basic government services, like roads, water, emergency services.
Sure, if someone wants to build an airport water park destination vacation spot, so be it. But if you are flying out
over Iowa and the engine sputters you want to land right now. There should be an airport somewhere close...

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

Is this not free enterprise?

Then, let's stop funding bicycle lanes (in the SF Bay area they get far
more than small airports), parks, golf courses, marinas, sports stadia,
etc. Put them all on the same level and create a vast, dull,
inhospitable place to live.


Yes, only government can provide those simple "necessities"

Geezlouise!!!
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Colorado Springs, CO