Turboprops exempt...oh boy!!!

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.

you prefer the nonsense spouted by the user fee User Fee USER FEE
shills?

Great analysis, Bob.

Thanks Matt.


I thought not.

Shill?

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.

you prefer the nonsense spouted by the user fee User Fee USER FEE
shills?

Great analysis, Bob.

Thanks Matt.


I thought not.

Shill?

sigh

Do you think everything AOPA "spouts" wrt user fees is nonsense.

Do you think nothing the user fee folks is nonsense?

btw - my view is that ATC is a government function. We (the US) should
fix the ATC funding, management, etc problems, not try to have a private
company perform ATC.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.

you prefer the nonsense spouted by the user fee User Fee USER FEE
shills?

Great analysis, Bob.

Thanks Matt.


I thought not.

Shill?

sigh

Do you think everything AOPA "spouts" wrt user fees is nonsense.

Do you think nothing the user fee folks is nonsense?

Aside from that having noting to do with being a "shill"...


btw - my view is that ATC is a government function.

And your Constitutional mandate is...?

We (the US) should
fix the ATC funding, management, etc problems, not try to have a private
company perform ATC.

The new ATC operation is NOT a private company.

Try again.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:35:35 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It doesn't matter in the least if it was her or a member staff.

It would if the staff were chosen for their skills in relevant areas of
expertise. Sadly, the only expertise is likely along the lines of being
able to maximize dishonesty per unit time.

- Andrew

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making
it self-supporting.


Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
running...anything. Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and we're
the enemy to the airlines.

It would be far more interesting were the ideas of funding and management
held distinct. The idea of user fees has some merits that can be argued.
Handing management of our airspace over to the airlines, or letting the
FAA roam free of any real oversight, on the other hand, has none.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:35:35 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It doesn't matter in the least if it was her or a member staff.

It would if the staff were chosen for their skills in relevant areas
of expertise. Sadly, the only expertise is likely along the lines of
being able to maximize dishonesty per unit time.

- Andrew

The point is, if the staff has been authorized to speak for her they speak
for her.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making
it self-supporting.


Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
running...anything.

Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO, that's a
pretty lame.

Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and we're
the enemy to the airlines.

And neither of them are the one's who will run it.



It would be far more interesting were the ideas of funding and management
held distinct. The idea of user fees has some merits that can be argued.
Handing management of our airspace over to the airlines, or letting the
FAA roam free of any real oversight, on the other hand, has none.

Andrew...if you don't know the composition of the ATO operation, well, hell,
keep on bitchin' and moanin'...

The worst enemy is ignorance and pork-barrel politics.

It would be fascinating to archive these threads and read them 5-7 years up
the road when the rationing is in full bloom and GA/spamcans are relegated
to VFR operations.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and
making it self-supporting.


Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
running...anything.

Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO,
that's a pretty lame.

Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and
we're the enemy to the airlines.

And neither of them are the one's who will run it.


Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:27:52 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

The point is, if the staff has been authorized to speak for her they speak
for her.

Of course. That's why they're picked for that particular skill.

- Andrew

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:10:07 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

Take a look at the composition of the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee. AOPA has a representative. NBAA has a representative. ALPA
has a representative. Continental has a representative. United has a
representative. Airline Dispatchers have a representative. Southwest
Pilots' has a representative. The FAA has a representative (and we've
seen exactly where the FAA stands on relevant issues).

But this wouldn't be biased in favor of airlines at the expense of GA.

- Andrew