If user fees go into effect I'm done

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:09:16 -0500, "Blueskies"
wrote in
:

I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.


http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_R...%20by%20JJ.htm
OOIDA has been very vocal in its opposition to auctioning off the
interstate system. For example, the Association took a strong stance
against the 75-year lease of the Indiana Toll Road. The Association is
also lobbying hard in other states where privatization is being
considered, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ighwaymen.html
The deal to privatize the Toll Road had been almost a year in the
making. Proponents celebrated it as a no-pain, all-gain way to
off-load maintenance expenses and mobilize new highway-building funds
without raising taxes. Opponents lambasted it as a major turn toward
handing the nation's common property over to private firms, and at
fire-sale prices to boot.

The one thing everyone agreed on was that the Indiana deal was just a
prelude to a host of such efforts to come. Across the nation, there is
now talk of privatizing everything from the New York Thruway to the
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey turnpikes, as well as of inviting
the private sector to build and operate highways and bridges from
Alabama to Alaska. More than 20 states have enacted legislation
allowing public-private partnerships, or P3s, to run highways. Robert
Poole, the founder of the libertarian Reason Foundation and a longtime
privatization advocate, estimates that some $25 billion in
public-private highway deals are in the works—a remarkable figure
given that as of 1991, the total cost of the interstate highway system
was estimated at $128.9 billion.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Blueskies" wrote in message
. net...

So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
problem...



Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
of Flight Watch.

Personally, I'd give up all government services if they would completely
stop taxing me.


Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...

Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but
that is the
same as saying that you would rather only ride on toll roads, rather than
the freeways
we have today. Some things are best as a govment service because private
providers
will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.



What things provided as government services are superior to things provided
by private providers motivated by the potential for profit?

Defense. There is little profit motive here and I don't think you could
support a national defense without a government.

Matt

scott moore wrote in
:

2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.

Then 2,000 lbs.

Then 1,000 lbs.

Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
restricted to unpopulated areas only.

Cessna 172s, Beech Bonanzas, and even Beech Barons pose a different threat
and a different cost than King Airs, Pilati, Citations and Gulfstreams.

Personal flying poses a different threat and cost than Corporate and
Charter.

Already there is differentiation - look at landing fees. They are based on
class, engine count, and weight. Quite frankly, if someone is personally
flying a Pilatus or King Air, he may find himself with a bit of the short
end of the stick here, but he also is flying a King Air or a Pilatus, and
probably can handle the difference.

I would love to believe that can win this 'war' and avert user fees
altogether. But my pragmatism or cynicism or whatever has led me to the
conclusion that even if we divert this attack, the enemy will keep on
coming. Seeing that it's a reality in Europe certainly dispells any
illusions I may have had.

In my opinion, the best we can hope for is that the public is smart enough
to recognize that we little folk are not worth the effort and leave us
alone.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure we'll get that much.

On 2007-02-09, Jim Logajan wrote:
generally don't use ATC when you do? Tough. You have no idea how
expensive it is for the federal government to maintain the atmosphere!
You think it just grows on trees!?

On a point of pedantry, some of the atmosphere does grow on trees :-)§

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2007-02-10, Chris wrote:
if you think this is a joke, in England, the Commercial licence has 8 exams
at $120 each, the IR 8 exams @ $120 each

This is one of the reasons I maintain my FAA license, and have no
intention of getting a JAA one.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2007-02-10, Judah wrote:
It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

This is the case. I've never paid a single user fee (aside from landing
fees, but the airports I generally visit are privately owned, and the
landing fee is charged by the owner of the airfield, not the
government).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It does
not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to resist
injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries ago.

Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.

In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
over just a single issue.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

What I say above true for the US as well.

Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
watchwords that they are in Europe.

I've lived in both Europe and the US for a significant time. I would beg
to differ - the average European and American have more in common on
this count than not. Social stratification is rife in the US - mainly
caused by apathy! Just visit any trailer park.

I would say though amongst the 'professional' class in the US, there is
a much better 'can do' attitude though.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

scott moore writes:

2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.

Then 2,000 lbs.

Then 1,000 lbs.

Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
restricted to unpopulated areas only.

At least someone understands how it works. But most people won't.

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