If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
On May 24, 3:12*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
*I saw in the articles you authored, a reasonable person, employed in the airline industry, with the potential to bring a fresh point of view to this argument. *I was hoping to be made more deeply aware of the air carriers' point of view, so that I could better understand the basis upon which it rests. *I'm still hopeful, but ... Dont get your hopes up G. My main point was that the airlines would like to see the operators who use the system help fund it. You can take this as anti GA if you like . Because I can go out to an uncontrolled field, and depart, fly to another such airport, and never avail myself of _ANY_ ATC facilities, I believe that if ATC (and/or the airlines) were to disappear tomorrow, GA would do fine, and air carriers would be out of business. Air carriers demand ATC, or they would be falling out of the sky like hail in Arkansas; GA does not. Are you kidding ? Every airport in the LA basin, including all but one of the privately owned airports has benefited from federal funding. If ATC were to vanish, how would anyone fly IFR without major delays ? Considering the fact that modernizing NAS will result in less ATC your last statement is kinda ironic . The money to fund private aviation comes out of the owners' pockets, or wasn't that the 'this' to which you were referring? * Virtually all of GA is subsidized . This is what I was refering to. * *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite..._editorial.pdf * * ... Private aircraft operators also do not pay ticket taxes to * * fund the FAA. * Last year the FAA spent $6 billion operating the * * Air Traffic Control system in the U.S. *This service is free of * * charge for private aircraft operators. *Why? *Because the * * commercial airlines pay taxes collected from you to pay for the * * operation of a system that all air travelers use. Now honestly Lar, what is it about RA's statement here that is ditribe ? Are you going MX on me ? * * Private aviation operators do pay fuel excise tax, as do all * * commercial airlines--but that is about the extent of private * * aviation's funding for airports. *At NWA, We believe an airport's * * operating costs should be borne by all who use them, including * * those who travel by private aircraft. * Here again, you are supporting my side. This is something that Boyer chooses to ignore. I dont think RA wants to mess with the guy who is flying his Cub out of a rural airport under VFR. We can argue till the cows come home but if you look at it from a per use standpoint, Biz Av is getting a free ride in this country. * *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-2-025x.html * * Apr. 15, 2004 AOPA on Thursday defended general aviation against * * a USA Today editorial that claims airline passengers "subsidize" * * general aviation. In an opposing view piece published alongside * * the paper's editorial, AOPA President Phil Boyer explained to USA * * Today readers that the current system is a single structure, * * designed for the airlines. Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the system has been put in place to suport GA. Also, I wouldnt put much stock in Useless Today. * * "Our elected representatives in Congress wisely created a national * * air transportation system," Boyer wrote. And just as trucks * * which place a greater strain on the national highway system pay * * higher taxes and fees than family cars, the airlines must carry a * * greater portion of the financial burden for the nation's air * * traffic control system. This is a good point but it fails to address the main argument. This is where Phil just makes himself look silly IMHO. * * The USA Today editorial was prompted by and uses much of the same * * rhetoric as an editorial that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard * * Anderson wrote for his airline's in-flight magazine. Blurring a serious distinction here. * * The USA Today editorial claims incorrectly that most GA flights * * use air traffic control separation services. In fact, the vast * * majority of GA flights are conducted under visual flight rules, * * requiring only minimal contact with controllers and placing almost * * no direct burden on the system. Doing it again. * * "The air traffic control system is designed to serve the * * airlines," wrote Boyer in USA Today. "Most small planes use few, * * if any, of these services. And some more. * * "The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a * * gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the * * system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay." Simply untrue. * * This all stems from a dispute between Northwest and the airport * * authority at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The * * Metropolitan Airport Commission also runs six reliever airports * * that improve efficiency for Northwest at MSP by moving most GA * * traffic elsewhere, and uses some of the funds collected at MSP for * * improvements at the relievers. Exactly what I was pointing out with LAX. * * "Mr. Anderson's attack on general aviation is unfair, unwarranted, * * and, for the most part, untrue," said Boyer. "And by publishing * * his attack in so public a forum, he has raised what should have * * remained a regional skirmish into a nationwide battle. ... Bla Bla Bla. The aviation trust fund is used nationwide. Biz Av operates nationwide. What region is Boyer refering to ? Perhaps the real problem in this airline v. GA argument stems from the ambiguity of the term GA. *Airlines see GA as Part 135 operations. But the vast majority of GA operations are private reciprocating-engine aircraft. *The airlines continue to fail to differentiate Part 135 operations from Part 91 operations. *Part 135 operations are a small subset of GA operations, and the air carriers' failure to use the correct terminology is causing them to meet significant resistance to their proposals. *Somebody needs to tell the Air Transport Association to substitute 'air-taxi' for GA in their press releases and lobbying. Totally baseless. You can operate a biz jet 91 right along with 135 operators and 121 operators into the same airports. What does this have to do with carrying the ATC burden? The air carrier costs you mention seem equitable to me. Dont miss the point. These costs go to subsidize GA airports. With regard to "reliever or satellite airports," what do you believe they are designed to relieve? *Has it occurred to you, that they are necessary because of air carrier operations? Now there is an MX style argument. Would you like to pay the landing fee at LAX ? That is poised to change. *Metropolitan/GA airports are about to become a much more vital part of our nation's air travel infrastructure, just ask Cirrus co-founder, COB, and CEO Alan Klapmeier. *His company is the parent of air-taxi startup SATSair.* They and DayJet are serving what amounts to a new air-travel market in the SE. *A vital part of serving that market are metropolitan airports. *The anticipated increased use of metropolitan airports should provide additional revenue generation opportunities for airport operators as well as local businesses in those cities. Have you seen how dayJet is doing ? Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. *Have you any idea of the cost to fund NextGen development, implementation, and operation? You are missing the point. If it works as advertized NEXGEN is supposed to be safer and more efficent. It is too bad that with all the other spending that is going on, the FAA has to compete for the $$ $ to get advances for aviation in this country. Frank |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:20:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: Stealth Pilot wrote: you really only need C, D and G. c - full time atc above 10,000ft with mandatory radio d - part time atc with mandatory radio even when the d is shut down(ctaf) g - free airspace to 10,000ft So no full-time ATC below 10,000 MSL? Why? of course there is C around the major airports. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:20:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: Stealth Pilot wrote: you really only need C, D and G. c - full time atc above 10,000ft with mandatory radio d - part time atc with mandatory radio even when the d is shut down(ctaf) g - free airspace to 10,000ft So no full-time ATC below 10,000 MSL? Why? of course there is C around the major airports. What's the criteria for a "major airport?? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
This is a useful discussion on this hot topic. Thank you for your contribution. I know it can be tedious, but to the extent that information is brought to light it is worth it. I welcome your continued thoughtful input. On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" wrote in : On May 24, 3:12*pm, Larry Dighera wrote: *I saw in the articles you authored, a reasonable person, employed in the airline industry, with the potential to bring a fresh point of view to this argument. *I was hoping to be made more deeply aware of the air carriers' point of view, so that I could better understand the basis upon which it rests. *I'm still hopeful, but ... Dont get your hopes up G. My main point was that the airlines would like to see the operators who use the system help fund it. You can take this as anti GA if you like . I believe the 'free ride' you imply isn't occurring. If you are able to provide supporting statistics for your position, please trot them out here into the light of day, so we can examine the facts, not innuendo. Because I can go out to an uncontrolled field, and depart, fly to another such airport, and never avail myself of _ANY_ ATC facilities, I believe that if ATC (and/or the airlines) were to disappear tomorrow, GA would do fine, and air carriers would be out of business. Air carriers demand ATC, or they would be falling out of the sky like hail in Arkansas; GA does not. Are you kidding ? No. Do you believe the airlines can function without ATC? Do you believe GA will die without ATC? Every airport in the LA basin, including all but one of the privately owned airports has benefited from federal funding. Are you attempting to imply, that GA does not contribute to AIP funding? If ATC were to vanish, how would anyone fly IFR without major delays ? IFR operation isn't critical to the vast majority of GA operations, so the point you raise is a red herring. IFR operations are critical to air carriers, and they should fund it, and any upgrades to ATC that they require. Simple. Considering the fact that modernizing NAS will result in less ATC your last statement is kinda ironic . No. I presume you are referring to NextGen providing computerized ATC in lieu of meat-based controllers. But, ATC it is none the less, and it the airlines who would be out of business without it, not the vast majority of GA. Further, your blind acceptance of NextGen's benefits despite it's flaws, reveals a certain naοvetι; you've bought Boeing's duplicitous bilge without doing any research or thinking for yourself, and if find it telling that there has been on mention of the total cost of NextGen. It's another large corporate attempt to provide an inferior product at an exorbitant cost similar to the USAF tanker lease proposal that was exposed for the boondoggle it was, not to mention the criminal offences involved. The money to fund private aviation comes out of the owners' pockets, or wasn't that the 'this' to which you were referring? * Virtually all of GA is subsidized . This is what I was refering to. Can you please provide some credible evidence to support that allegation, as I have done with the majority of my assertions? I hope you're not trying to equate GA with the airline bailouts provided by tax payers. If you want to discuss subsidies: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...1274/index.htm The airline bailout bounty February 21 2007: 7:52 AM EST (Fortune Magazine)-- Four major airline bankruptcies and thousands of layoffs later, 2001's $15 billion airline-bailout bill hardly looks like taxpayer money brilliantly spent. The bailout bill authorized $5 billion in direct grants and up to $10 billion in loan guarantees for airlines. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1/b3752735.htm Congress opened up the Treasury to the airline industry. Lawmakers coughed up $5 billion in emergency aid and agreed to guarantee up to $10 billion in borrowings. * *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite..._editorial.pdf * * ... Private aircraft operators also do not pay ticket taxes to * * fund the FAA. * Last year the FAA spent $6 billion operating the * * Air Traffic Control system in the U.S. *This service is free of * * charge for private aircraft operators. *Why? *Because the * * commercial airlines pay taxes collected from you to pay for the * * operation of a system that all air travelers use. Now honestly Lar, what is it about RA's statement here that is ditribe ? Nothing, as 'ditribe' is not a word. Even if you meant 'diatribe,' it's not that either. It's just profoundly misleading. There is no ticket tax on GA flights, because there are no tickets issued for the vast majority of GA operations. Clearly Richard Anderson's statement is meant to incite public furor against GA by deceptive rhetoric. Shameful. Are you going MX on me ? I have no idea what that means. * * Private aviation operators do pay fuel excise tax, as do all * * commercial airlines--but that is about the extent of private * * aviation's funding for airports. *At NWA, We believe an airport's * * operating costs should be borne by all who use them, including * * those who travel by private aircraft. * Here again, you are supporting my side. I am attempting to be fair and balanced by quoting Richard Anderson. What is the proportion in dollars of AIP funding granted airline hub airports compared to GA airports? I suspect, that airline hub airports receive the lion's share of AIP funding. Again, Richard Anderson is implying that GA receives a disproportionate subsidy to what it contributes. I have seen no evidence to support that notion. This is something that Boyer chooses to ignore. Perhaps Boyer was being tactful by not outing Richard Anderson's blatant attempt to obfuscate the issue. I dont think RA wants to mess with the guy who is flying his Cub out of a rural airport under VFR. Because those types of GA operations rival air carrier operations in number, that distinction should be publicly voiced by the airline industry, and those GA stakeholders shouldn't be financially impacted in the proposed NextGen implementation. We can argue till the cows come home but if you look at it from a per use standpoint, Biz Av is getting a free ride in this country. Is Biz Av receiving government bail out funding? Now that's a free ride worth examining. How many GA operators received bail out grants? In any event, the vast majority of GA operations are not Biz AV, but the airline industry fails to acknowledge the distinction. * *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-2-025x.html * * Apr. 15, 2004 AOPA on Thursday defended general aviation against * * a USA Today editorial that claims airline passengers "subsidize" * * general aviation. In an opposing view piece published alongside * * the paper's editorial, AOPA President Phil Boyer explained to USA * * Today readers that the current system is a single structure, * * designed for the airlines. Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the system has been put in place to suport GA. If you believe that a significant proportion of the system has been put in place to support GA, perhaps you'll be good enough to cite some credible figures. Otherwise, I'll just ignore such unsupported claims, as it's not possible to debate such nebulous assertions. Also, I wouldnt put much stock in Useless Today. Agreed. But appropriately, they were the newspaper that saw fit to carry Richard Anderson's BS. * * "Our elected representatives in Congress wisely created a national * * air transportation system," Boyer wrote. And just as trucks * * which place a greater strain on the national highway system pay * * higher taxes and fees than family cars, the airlines must carry a * * greater portion of the financial burden for the nation's air * * traffic control system. This is a good point but it fails to address the main argument. This is where Phil just makes himself look silly IMHO. Without your specific clarification of your objection to Mr. Boyer's statement, it's not possible to debate your assertion. * * The USA Today editorial was prompted by and uses much of the same * * rhetoric as an editorial that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard * * Anderson wrote for his airline's in-flight magazine. Blurring a serious distinction here. What implied distinction are you making here? * * The USA Today editorial claims incorrectly that most GA flights * * use air traffic control separation services. In fact, the vast * * majority of GA flights are conducted under visual flight rules, * * requiring only minimal contact with controllers and placing almost * * no direct burden on the system. Doing it again. Well stop doing it. :-) If you've got something to say, state it succinctly. Innuendo isn't going to persuade anyone to your view. * * "The air traffic control system is designed to serve the * * airlines," wrote Boyer in USA Today. "Most small planes use few, * * if any, of these services. And some more. So you are unable to refute Mr. Boyer's assertions? * * "The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a * * gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the * * system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay." Simply untrue. Specifically what do you believe would be more correct? * * This all stems from a dispute between Northwest and the airport * * authority at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The * * Metropolitan Airport Commission also runs six reliever airports * * that improve efficiency for Northwest at MSP by moving most GA * * traffic elsewhere, and uses some of the funds collected at MSP for * * improvements at the relievers. Exactly what I was pointing out with LAX. What do you believe is important about that? Perhaps the real problem in this airline v. GA argument stems from the ambiguity of the term GA. *Airlines see GA as Part 135 operations. But the vast majority of GA operations are private reciprocating-engine aircraft. *The airlines continue to fail to differentiate Part 135 operations from Part 91 operations. *Part 135 operations are a small subset of GA operations, and the air carriers' failure to use the correct terminology is causing them to meet significant resistance to their proposals. *Somebody needs to tell the Air Transport Association to substitute 'air-taxi' for GA in their press releases and lobbying. Totally baseless. Totally? Don't you believe that the vast majority of GA operations are conducted with private reciprocating-engine aircraft operating VFR? Don't you believe that there should be a distinction drawn between those operations and Biz Av? You can operate a biz jet 91 right along with 135 operators and 121 operators into the same airports. What does this have to do with carrying the ATC burden? I was attempting to justify the air carriers' adversarial position toward light, recip-engine GA, but it's clear there is none warranted. The air carrier costs you mention seem equitable to me. Dont miss the point. These costs go to subsidize GA airports. Not exclusively. You're not trying to assert that there is no contribution from GA toward AIP grants, are you? What percentage of the AIP funds are used for GA airports as opposed to airline hubs? You make it sound like the air carriers are necessary to GA. That is ludicrous. With regard to "reliever or satellite airports," what do you believe they are designed to relieve? *Has it occurred to you, that they are necessary because of air carrier operations? Now there is an MX style argument. Rather than implying that there is some flaw in my rhetoric, perhaps you'll be good enough to concretely explain your specific disagreement with it. Would you like to pay the landing fee at LAX ? I would prefer that airline hub airports were located in rural areas instead of the center of the city, and were fed from municipal airports. It's inevitable. Prior to deregulation there was no landing fee at LAX, at least I was never charged one. That is poised to change. *Metropolitan/GA airports are about to become a much more vital part of our nation's air travel infrastructure, just ask Cirrus co-founder, COB, and CEO Alan Klapmeier. *His company is the parent of air-taxi startup SATSair.* They and DayJet are serving what amounts to a new air-travel market in the SE. *A vital part of serving that market are metropolitan airports. *The anticipated increased use of metropolitan airports should provide additional revenue generation opportunities for airport operators as well as local businesses in those cities. Have you seen how dayJet is doing ? The fact that DayJet has not found the additional funding it requires, given the current state of the economy, is frustrating, but DayJet just added additional airports to its service area: (http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/B...197799-1.html), DayJet on Tuesday said it will expand its network (http://www.dayjet.com/News/PressRele...a_05202008.pdf) of DayPorts, adding two more Florida cities, for a total of nine sites. With the addition of Jacksonville and Sarasota, 62 percent of Florida's population now lives within 35 miles of a DayPort airport, the company said in a statement on Tuesday. SATSair seems to be doing fine. Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. *Have you any idea of the cost to fund NextGen development, implementation, and operation? You are missing the point. I believe it is you who is missing the point. The cost to develop, implement and operate NextGen ATC will be several orders of magnitude greater than the present system, that's the reason those with NextGen products to sell are attempting to abolish Congressional oversight of FAA. They know Congress will not approve such a giveaway. As a GA pilot, I don't really need the present ATC system, let alone NextGen ATC, so imagine how jamming the NextGen boondoggle down my throat feels. If the Airlines need NextGen, the Airlines should fund it. But NextGen is irrevocably flawed. If it works as advertized NEXGEN is supposed to be safer and more efficent. Even the FAA acknowledges the vulnerability dependence on satellite communications introduces into the system: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=56353 May 22 Galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and protons may sound like something out of Star Trek. But space weather could have a major impact on the way the FAA moves airplanes. Often driven by changing conditions on the sun, space weather is expected to have an increasing impact on flight planning and operations on the Earth, Air Traffic Organization Chief Operating Officer Hank Krakowski said at a conference on the issue in Washington, DC, on May 21. Krakowski explained that weather in outer space can affect the reliability of space-borne technological systems, such as high-precision Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation. The FAA is currently transforming the way it moves air traffic from a ground-based radar system to a satellite-based navigation system, using GPS, as part of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, known as NextGen. ... And I see no reason to believe that NextGen ATC is going to be any better than the ADS-B implementation the FAA has suggested in their NPRM that mandates GA aircraft be equipped with $17,000.00 ADS-B Out equipment at owners' expense. That would provide none of the benefits of ADS-B In such as weather or depiction of other participating aircraft, and the cost would exceed the value of a significant segment of the of GA aircraft. And in any event, the ADS-B NPRM completely overlooks military operations. If that is also how FAA intends to conduct its due diligence obligation to NextGen stakeholders, I am completely opposed to it. It is too bad that with all the other spending that is going on, the FAA has to compete for the $$$ to get advances for aviation in this country. Frank It's too bad that due to the $2.5 billion per week cost of the needless Iraq war, that educational funding is being reduced, despite the abysmal high school graduation rate in our nation. Compared to that travesty, the importance of NextGen pales. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm REVISED APRIL 2002 The report's main findings are the following: * The national graduation rate for the class of 1998 was 71%. For white students the rate was 78%, while it was 56% for African-American students and 54% for Latino students. * Georgia had the lowest overall graduation rate in the nation with 54% of students graduating, followed by Nevada, Florida, and Washington, D.C. * Iowa had the highest overall graduation rate with 93%, followed by North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska. * Wisconsin had the lowest graduation rate among African-American students with 40%, followed by Minnesota, Georgia, and Tennessee. Georgia had the lowest graduation rate among Latino students with 32%, followed by Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Less than 50% of African-American students graduated in seven states and less than 50% of Latino students graduated in eight states for which data were available. And the trend is not good: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html High School Graduation Rates Plummet Below 50 Percent in Some U.S. Cities Tuesday, April 01, 2008 WASHINGTON Seventeen of the nation's 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50 percent, with the lowest graduation rates reported in Detroit, Indianapolis and Cleveland, according to a report released Tuesday. The report, issued by America's Promise Alliance, found that about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation's largest cities receive diplomas. Students in suburban and rural public high schools were more likely to graduate than their counterparts in urban public high schools, the researchers said. Nationally, about 70 percent of U.S. students graduate on time with a regular diploma and about 1.2 million students drop out annually. "When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school, it's more than a problem, it's a catastrophe," said former Secretary of State Colin Powell, founding chair of the alliance. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
F. Baum wrote:
Dont get your hopes up G. My main point was that the airlines would like to see the operators who use the system help fund it. You can take this as anti GA if you like . The operators who use the system DO help fund it. Are you kidding ? Every airport in the LA basin, including all but one of the privately owned airports has benefited from federal funding. If ATC were to vanish, how would anyone fly IFR without major delays ? They'd have to trust the "big sky, little airplane" theory, just as they did prior to ATC. Presumanly the major delays you refer to would be waiting for good weather, which would not be flying IFR. That wouldn't eliminate delays at major hubs, however. If an airport has a maximum capacity of X operations per hour under ideal conditions and more than X hourly operations are scheduled delays are unavoidable. Considering the fact that modernizing NAS will result in less ATC your last statement is kinda ironic . Consider the fact that modernizing NAS will not reduce airline delays. Virtually all of GA is subsidized . This is what I was refering to. Virtually all of GA is subsidized? What evidence do you have to support that assertion? Here again, you are supporting my side. This is something that Boyer chooses to ignore. I dont think RA wants to mess with the guy who is flying his Cub out of a rural airport under VFR. We can argue till the cows come home but if you look at it from a per use standpoint, Biz Av is getting a free ride in this country. What evidence do you have to support that assertion? Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the system has been put in place to suport GA. Also, I wouldnt put much stock in Useless Today. Well, how much of the system HAS been put in place to suport GA? "The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay." Simply untrue. What are the respective fuel tax rates? You are missing the point. If it works as advertized NEXGEN is supposed to be safer and more efficent. It is too bad that with all the other spending that is going on, the FAA has to compete for the $$ $ to get advances for aviation in this country. If it works as advertized NEXGEN will be safer and more efficient but it will do nothing to reduce airline delays. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
On May 25, 9:17*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: They'd have to trust the "big sky, little airplane" theory, just as they did prior to ATC. *Presumanly the major delays you refer to would be waiting for good weather, which would not be flying IFR. *That wouldn't eliminate delays at major hubs, however. *If an airport has a maximum capacity of X operations per hour under ideal conditions and *more than X hourly operations are scheduled delays are unavoidable. Welcom to the discusion. You have taken alot of my post out of context. I dont know how much IFR you do in uncontrolled airspace but you gotta admit, things definatly move slower. This is part what I was refering to. The other part is that reliever airports rely on the major airports for funding. The FAA set it up that way, not the airlines. My guess is that you dont own your own airport and the airport you fly out of has benefited from fees and taxes from people other than the pilots who use it. The OP posted links to press releases or editorials that had a bit of overstatement on both sides. Editorials are nice and interesting, but they are mostly one persons opinion. I think much of the diaolouge here could probably be between the NBAA and the FAA. I welcome Boyers opinion but I disagree with alot of what he says and I think AOPA does GA a diservice in many ways. Dont make assumptions about that, it is just my opinion AFTER having been a member for a few years. Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the system has been put in place to suport GA. Also, I wouldnt put much stock in Useless Today. Well, how much of the system HAS been put in place to suport GA? This is a good question. As a percentage I would guess most of it. Ask yourself this the next time you fly an approach into a field that is not served by an airline. Another good example is WAAS which was funded in no small part by the taxpayers and traveling public, and yet it is of almost no use to the airlines. What are the respective fuel tax rates? The last time I read about it, it was 38 cents a gallon. If it works as advertized NEXGEN will be safer and more efficient but it will do nothing to reduce airline delays. OK Phil G F Baum |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
Anywhere Stelth Pitot is considerede an assholw!
It happens that Steven P. McNicoll formulated : of course there is C around the major airports. What's the criteria for a "major airport?? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
Oshkosh is NOT one of them. Oshkosh tower was established about eight
years before the EAA moved it's convention from Rockford, North Central Airlines was providing scheduled service. True, but it would certainly have been decommissioned by now, were it not for Airventure. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:iRJ_j.127265$TT4.587@attbi_s22: Oshkosh is NOT one of them. Oshkosh tower was established about eight years before the EAA moved it's convention from Rockford, North Central Airlines was providing scheduled service. True, but it would certainly have been decommissioned by now, were it not for Airventure. Idiot Bertie |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On May 23, 12:32 pm, "F. Baum" wrote: On May 22, 5:27 pm, Andrew Sarangan wrote: Class D tower is the highest I've seen at GA airports, and even there it appears to be mostly due to historic reasons (ie it used to be a military field or used to have airline traffic some time in the past). Some airports operate their class D tower only when scheduled airlines are expected to arrive and depart. The need for a tower is based on the number or volume of A/C movements. Also, keep in mind that it takes special authorization for a 121 carrier to operate IFR in uncontroller airspace. I would be interested to know how many ATC towers have been built for reasons other than serving 121 carriers or military. Oshkosh is one example, but are there more? KFTG. No scheduled airline, no scheduled charters. What charters do come in usually just to refuel (5 nm from DEN and almost $2/gal cheaper for JetA) and drop off a family. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: One-Day-Left: 3 Books - JETS JETS and JETS - AIRPORT - 30 Seconds Over Tokyo | Alan | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 14th 05 01:11 PM |
Remains of fliers returned to U.S. | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 19th 04 11:32 PM |
Any fliers? | Garamondextended | Military Aviation | 200 | June 8th 04 08:45 PM |
For Fliers Only | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 37 | December 4th 03 09:33 PM |
'They want to ban recreational flying...' | Thomas J. Paladino Jr. | Piloting | 28 | July 22nd 03 07:20 PM |