Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

"Denny" wrote in message
oups.com...


So, do the fees collected by the commercial airlines through their
fares and then paid to various agencies completely cover the costs of
building and operating airports and the air traffic control system?

Nope..

They don't even cover the costs of running the airlines - that's why they
are all in Chapter 11.

William Black writes:

I think that you may have exagerated that slightly.

Unfortunately, I don't think I have. I'm regularly amazed by the extent to
which government interferes with everything in most of Europe.

Does the President of the United States appear at the launch of a new civilian
aircraft in the U.S.?

And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

The big maarket for the A380 will almost certainly be the Far East where
very large numbers of people want to fly reasonably large distances and
economic expantion will allow them to do so very soon.

In which case an emphasis on developing smaller airports in the U.S. isn't
likely to be a conspiracy to help Boeing, contrary to the original assertion
that I addressed.

We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
phenominal rates.

And they are exhausting resources at phenomenal rates. Unless they control
their populations, the bubble will eventually burst, and it won't be that far
in the future.

What US company operates without government interference?

Essentially all of them. The President of France intervened to choose the
color of the roof of a building at Disneyland Paris. Can you imagine the
President of the United States intervening to select a color for a building at
Walt Disney World?

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
William Black writes:


And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
phenominal rates.

And they are exhausting resources at phenomenal rates. Unless they
control
their populations, the bubble will eventually burst, and it won't be that
far
in the future.

What resources?

India's economic turnaround is almost all based around its huge English
speaking population working in telecommunications based service industries.

China is making manufactured goods for the West to Western patterns in
factories designed ijn the West.

Neither country has any serious resources that they're selling, the
resource making the money is cheap people.

An Indian graduate with a higher degree will work, in India, for $10,000 a
year and think they've got a very good job.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.




What US company operates without government interference?

Essentially all of them.

So there's no regulation of industry there.

And here's me thinking environmental legislation was taking some sort of
hold, not to mention the banning of the 'company store'...

hummingbird writes:

That is entirely untrue.

I've lived in both countries, and unfortunately it's true.

Remind me of how many of Bush's first cabinet
had direct links to big oil and/or the Jewish Lobby and/or Israel.

Only a small fraction of business in the U.S. as a whole. Europeans, on the
other hand, have their fingers in everything. No large business has much room
to make its own decisions.

I often wonder why the American people have handed over their govt
to Israel.

Because Zionists in the U.S. have spent decades presenting a one-sided,
extremely favorable view of Israel to the American people, and it has worked.

They haven't exactly handed the government over to Israel, but no one in the
United States government can take any public position unfavorable to Israel,
and no one can be elected unless he favors Israel unconditionally.

However, this is remarkable precisely because it is the _exception_ to the
rule.

But for sure, big money and govt are much closer in bed in the US
than in Europe or any other part of the world.

Big business and government are often at odds with each other in the U.S. The
opposite is true in Europe; indeed, it's hard to tell the difference between
European business and European government, outside of cottage industries.

American foreign policy is known to have a huge commercial element
behind it.

What other element should it have behind it?

Then of course
there's the Jewish Lobby...and MS's new found friendship with the
music/film industry reflected in Vista DRM controls.

I don't see what this has to do with the government.

That may be so. But it's been long alleged that the US fed govt
overpays Boeing for its military planes as an indirect subsidy to
Boeing's commercial plane business.

No, it just does what every government does, paying too much for military
contracts. It's hardly a subsidy. European governments pay too much for
their purchases of aircraft from European manufacturers too, but it's less
obvious because Europe simply doesn't have any manufacturers that amount to a
blip on the radar, except for Airbus, and we know how badly they are doing.

Long ago, it was the fed govt
who helped to kill off Concorde to protect US aircraft plane makers
using the lame excuse of noise etc.

If the Concorde were such a good idea, it would have been successful even if
nobody in the U.S. bought it.

As it is, BA and Air France were forced to buy them, just as they are forced
to buy Airbus planes.

The US fed govt also heavily subsidies American agricultural industry
despite its frequent claims to want free markets and free competiton.
Ask the rice farmers of Ghana.

Europeans heavily subsidize their farmers, too.

ISTR that Boeing's Execs have had their fair share of chaos and
corruption in recent times.

They've survived for decades, and they are doing better than Airbus now. And
the U.S. government isn't a shareholder.

Clearly there is a strong difference between Boeing and Airbus as to
how they see the plane market developing and I would expect the fed
govt to do whatever it can to support Boeing's direction.

I would expect Boeing to do whatever it can to follow the Fed's direction.

I don't think the A380 was intended for the US domestic market.

I don't think the A380 was intended for anything, except as another attempt to
try to measure up to Boeing.

Those two big economies in Asia are where the growing market is...

Until they start building their own.

ISTR that it was Boeing who used the fed's Echelon satellite spy
system to spy on Airbus contract negotiations some while ago.

Yes, that's how it found out that Airbus used bribes to win contracts, instead
of merit. The Europeans were furious about this being brought out into the
open.

Apart from that, industrial espionage goes on by all countries.

To a limited extent, but some Europeans make an institution of it. The really
amusing thing is that even after they spy on others, they still can't compete.

You have an unreal view of Europe.

I wish that were true. Where would Airbus be if it were truly a private
corporation free of government interference? Then again, it probably wouldn't
exist, as nobody would organize a company that way except for political
reasons.

Yes, it is becoming a totalitarian
nightmare of Orwellian proportions but the US is also not far behind.
American people have surrendered freedom in return for security -
but will get neither.

Whereas Europeans never had it and don't miss it in consequence.

I make these comments not because I am anti-American but because
America used to be the only place where freedom and liberty still
existed and there was still hope for mankind.....

Neither Europe nor the U.S. is that way any more. All democracies tend to
self-destruct in time.

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

William Black writes:

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Those aren't subsidies, they are margins, which contribute to the profit of
the contractor. All government contractors pad their contracts, especially
military contracts.

What resources?

Water, arable land, fossil fuels, clean air, etc.

India's economic turnaround is almost all based around its huge English
speaking population working in telecommunications based service industries.

I hope it is looking at more long-term prospects.

Neither country has any serious resources that they're selling, ...

They are consuming resources, not selling them.

An Indian graduate with a higher degree will work, in India, for $10,000 a
year and think they've got a very good job.

Compared to the cost of living, he may be right. But that will change (is
changing, in fact).

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

I've lived in both countries, and unfortunately it's true.


No you haven't. It's clear from your attitude and experience, you have never
lived at all.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
William Black writes:

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Those aren't subsidies, they are margins, which contribute to the profit
of
the contractor. All government contractors pad their contracts,
especially
military contracts.

What resources?

Water, arable land, fossil fuels, clean air, etc.

India and China have very few fosil fuels, they both import them. They
have both managed to become self sufficient in food and their agricultural
land utilisation is rather good. Clean air isn't of any great interest in
societies where drinking water is a scarce resource.

India's economic turnaround is almost all based around its huge English
speaking population working in telecommunications based service
industries.

I hope it is looking at more long-term prospects.

Well they're busy buying up large amounts of European industry.
Interestingly neither of them are investing in the USA despite having huge
amounts of dollars.

What do you suggest as an alternative to telecommunications in the long
term?

Neither country has any serious resources that they're selling, ...

They are consuming resources, not selling them.

So?

They can afford to pay for them.

Welcome to the globalised world...

An Indian graduate with a higher degree will work, in India, for
$10,000 a
year and think they've got a very good job.

Compared to the cost of living, he may be right. But that will change (is
changing, in fact).

Inflation in India runs at about 6% per year.

Last year I took four people out for dinner in a fashionable restaurant
there for less than $25, including cocktails, and I do mean fashionable...

Next year it may be $26:50...

When's it going to be $100 each?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Apr 17, 8:06 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
(Mxsmanic) wrote :

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
system?

If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Not to mention the extra fire hydrants required along streets of the
crash zones for those private communities.. you know who you are...JG

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:36:05 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

hummingbird writes:

That is entirely untrue.

I've lived in both countries, and unfortunately it's true.

Not.

Remind me of how many of Bush's first cabinet
had direct links to big oil and/or the Jewish Lobby and/or Israel.

Only a small fraction of business in the U.S. as a whole.

That's not the question I asked is it.
Evasion will get you nowhere with me.

Europeans, on the
other hand, have their fingers in everything. No large business has much room
to make its own decisions.

Nonsense. We're talking 2007, not 1945.


I often wonder why the American people have handed over their govt
to Israel.

Because Zionists in the U.S. have spent decades presenting a one-sided,
extremely favorable view of Israel to the American people, and it has worked.

In that I tend to agree. More fool Americans for buying the crap.

They haven't exactly handed the government over to Israel, but no one in the
United States government can take any public position unfavorable to Israel,
and no one can be elected unless he favors Israel unconditionally.

Indeed.

However, this is remarkable precisely because it is the _exception_ to the
rule.

Are you contradicting yourself?

But for sure, big money and govt are much closer in bed in the US
than in Europe or any other part of the world.

Big business and government are often at odds with each other in the U.S. The
opposite is true in Europe; indeed, it's hard to tell the difference between
European business and European government, outside of cottage industries.

Nonsense.

American foreign policy is known to have a huge commercial element
behind it.

What other element should it have behind it?

Offering help to other countries to develop?

Then of course
there's the Jewish Lobby...and MS's new found friendship with the
music/film industry reflected in Vista DRM controls.

I don't see what this has to do with the government.

That big US corps either are in bed with the govt or in bed with each
other ...but not in bed with their customers. See MS.

That may be so. But it's been long alleged that the US fed govt
overpays Boeing for its military planes as an indirect subsidy to
Boeing's commercial plane business.

No, it just does what every government does, paying too much for military
contracts. It's hardly a subsidy. European governments pay too much for
their purchases of aircraft from European manufacturers too, but it's less
obvious because Europe simply doesn't have any manufacturers that amount to a
blip on the radar, except for Airbus, and we know how badly they are doing.

That's one view of military contracts.

On other European industry ...ISTM that every time I watch a US TV
movie nowadays the good guys and bad guys are driving BMWs or Mercs.
The poor guys and trailor trash are driving American junk.

Sorry to say it but German cars are probably the best in the world
and employ higher technology. Even the Japs can't keep up.


Long ago, it was the fed govt
who helped to kill off Concorde to protect US aircraft plane makers
using the lame excuse of noise etc.

If the Concorde were such a good idea, it would have been successful even if
nobody in the U.S. bought it.

That's disingenuous. Many US airports barred it from landing.

As it is, BA and Air France were forced to buy them, just as they are forced
to buy Airbus planes.

BA don't buy Airbus planes. But many others do. They're everywhere.
Watch out for the SIA A380 maiden flight later this year.
Then watch Emirates and their A380s.....


The US fed govt also heavily subsidies American agricultural industry
despite its frequent claims to want free markets and free competiton.
Ask the rice farmers of Ghana.

Europeans heavily subsidize their farmers, too.

Agreed. I wasn't supporting European subsidies. It's just that Europe
doesn't tend to shout about free trade and practice subsidies. I think
it's called hypocrisy and double standards.


ISTR that Boeing's Execs have had their fair share of chaos and
corruption in recent times.

They've survived for decades, and they are doing better than Airbus now. And
the U.S. government isn't a shareholder.

Doing better *now*. What happens next year?
And let's remember, foreign govts don't get threatened or bombed by
Europe if they choose Boeing. Not so the other way round.

Look what happened to Saddam when he dumped the dollar...


Clearly there is a strong difference between Boeing and Airbus as to
how they see the plane market developing and I would expect the fed
govt to do whatever it can to support Boeing's direction.

I would expect Boeing to do whatever it can to follow the Fed's direction.

I don't think the A380 was intended for the US domestic market.

I don't think the A380 was intended for anything, except as another attempt to
try to measure up to Boeing.

Speculation.

Those two big economies in Asia are where the growing market is...

Until they start building their own.

It'll be years before they can build A380 type planes.

ISTR that it was Boeing who used the fed's Echelon satellite spy
system to spy on Airbus contract negotiations some while ago.

Yes, that's how it found out that Airbus used bribes to win contracts, instead
of merit. The Europeans were furious about this being brought out into the
open.

Yawn.

Apart from that, industrial espionage goes on by all countries.

To a limited extent, but some Europeans make an institution of it. The really
amusing thing is that even after they spy on others, they still can't compete.

Evidence?

You have an unreal view of Europe.

I wish that were true. Where would Airbus be if it were truly a private
corporation free of government interference? Then again, it probably wouldn't
exist, as nobody would organize a company that way except for political
reasons.

Govts part-funded it to start up but today Airbus is essentially a
self-determined corporation making its own investment decisions.


Yes, it is becoming a totalitarian
nightmare of Orwellian proportions but the US is also not far behind.
American people have surrendered freedom in return for security -
but will get neither.

Whereas Europeans never had it and don't miss it in consequence.

Some truth in that.


I make these comments not because I am anti-American but because
America used to be the only place where freedom and liberty still
existed and there was still hope for mankind.....

Neither Europe nor the U.S. is that way any more. All democracies tend to
self-destruct in time.

At last we agree on something.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:48:18 -0700, Kev wrote:

The factory owner dropped his
efforts at closing the airport.

I was going to ask for a cite about this, as it's a story I'd missed (I'm
also in NJ) and I wanted to share it with others.

But it was pretty easy to find:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/189584-1.html
http://www.rotor.com/membership/rotorgram110.htm

Apparently, this didn't keep Joerger from fighting to keep the air
ambulance away. He owns a farm that he's wanted to subdivide according
to one article I've read...and it was just recently approved for
subdivision.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n... 506414&rfi=6

- Andrew