Flying in the USA vs. Europe

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Be ready to weep for me then.
I just got did my FAA IR currency with a couple of approaches to Cambridge
UK. Three times round the hold, an NDB approach and miss followed by
another hold and an ILS approach with a full stop landing cost me £47 or
$92
inc tax. The landing itself cost $39 and was "discounted" as an incentive
to use the airport for approaches.

Your post should be reproduced by AOPA in ever pilot forum in
America. Nothing more graphically illustrates what we might be facing
here in the US if we don't nip the initiative in the bud.

The issue is that the airport is privately owned not subsidized by federal,
state or city taxpayers and has to make a profit to keep going. The ATC are
employees of the airport, not civil servants paid out of taxes.

The airport has a contract to service C130s for the RAF but are not allowed
to cross subsidize the GA activity. That would be a wrong use of taxpayers
money.

You don't run your business at a loss so why should the airport run at a
loss?

The issue is that the airport is privately owned not subsidized by federal,
state or city taxpayers and has to make a profit to keep going. The ATC are
employees of the airport, not civil servants paid out of taxes.

In America, most airports are owned by the local government, no
different than the city roads. After all, a runway is nothing but a
road for airplanes, and is often the "front door" to the city.

Most airports in America are not staffed by civil servants, but rather
are contracted out to private FBOs who pay a monthly lease to the
government for the right to operate there. They may also pay a
percentage of income as part of their lease.

Thanks goodness, I might add. I shudder to think what our airport
would be like with "civil servants" running the show...

The airport has a contract to service C130s for the RAF but are not allowed
to cross subsidize the GA activity. That would be a wrong use of taxpayers
money.

If the airport is truly privately built and owned, I have no problem
with them charging landing and parking fees. They are running the
airport as a *business* -- not a public service -- and that's a HUGE
difference.

Of course, running it that way is about as stupid as toll roads.
Intelligent, enlightened people simply raise the gas tax a nickel
rather than stop 16 lanes of traffic to collect fifty cents.

Your country (rather like Chicago) has decided to have it *both* ways
-- they charge a "toll" AND charge hugely absurd gas taxes -- to the
detriment of all. This is NOT a model for America to copy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
The issue is that the airport is privately owned not subsidized by
federal,
state or city taxpayers and has to make a profit to keep going. The ATC
are
employees of the airport, not civil servants paid out of taxes.

In America, most airports are owned by the local government, no
different than the city roads. After all, a runway is nothing but a
road for airplanes, and is often the "front door" to the city.

Most airports in America are not staffed by civil servants, but rather
are contracted out to private FBOs who pay a monthly lease to the
government for the right to operate there. They may also pay a
percentage of income as part of their lease.

Thanks goodness, I might add. I shudder to think what our airport
would be like with "civil servants" running the show...

The airport has a contract to service C130s for the RAF but are not
allowed
to cross subsidize the GA activity. That would be a wrong use of
taxpayers
money.

If the airport is truly privately built and owned, I have no problem
with them charging landing and parking fees. They are running the
airport as a *business* -- not a public service -- and that's a HUGE
difference.

Of course, running it that way is about as stupid as toll roads.
Intelligent, enlightened people simply raise the gas tax a nickel
rather than stop 16 lanes of traffic to collect fifty cents.

All aviation in this country is run as a business, airports, airlines and
the ATC. The fact is our airlines are profitable as are the airports which
is more than can be said about the US airlines despite their vast subsidies
from the tax payer. They do this by serving the mass of the public. They do
it pretty well when the equivalent of the whole country goes abroad at least
once a year.
GA is not a public service, For us, GA is not a sensible or cost effective
means of transportation when there are far better alternatives around.

There are a lot of people who have weekend homes in Spain, Croatia, France,
Slovenia where you can travel in new modern airliners for about $200 round
trip from all around the UK. Who needs their own aircraft as a means of
transport.

If many people are honest GA (in particular single engine piston) is a crap
means of transportation. What people want is the experience of doing the
flying. Going from A to B is the excuse. Whatever we pay over the odds for
that wherever we are. Its all relative.

I have a business trip to Glasgow planned for the end of next month. I am
thinking about flying myself, it is 290nm and altogether it is going to take
about 3.5 hours to get there and the same coming back. It is going to cost
me in my Pa 28 about £ 65 an hour or $120 an hour in funny money. Landing
fees at a small airport near Glasgow will be £10.

My secretary booked me flights just in case it is not possible to fly up and
the fare including taxes came to £65.

I can go to Dubrovnik in Croatia for £100 in the same period too.

One just needs to stop kidding oneself about why we fly.

The guys in their Citation Jets etc - they can afford to pay for what they
get - why shed any tears for them.

"Borat" wrote

If many people are honest GA (in particular single engine piston) is a
crap
means of transportation.

For me, sometimes the airlines are a better choice, sometimes driving, and
sometimes GA. There is no clear winner for every case - it depends on the
trip. Furthermore, it doesn't always boil down to what the trip costs -
sometimes time is more important than money. Beyond that, there is also the
issue of what you can easily take with you on the airlines versus in your
own aircraft.

Sometimes it even works out that those of us flying our tiny tin can
airplanes can land, refuel, and take off again while the airlines are stuck
circling and/or waiting on the ground. I just love it when that happens.

I bet that there are about 100,000 people at the KPHL airport over this past
weekend who might have a different opinion on how nice and convenient having
the airlines as their only choice of transportation is.

BDS

All aviation in this country is run as a business, airports, airlines and
the ATC. The fact is our airlines are profitable as are the airports which
is more than can be said about the US airlines despite their vast subsidies
from the tax payer.

Our airports are immensely profitable. Our little local airport
(publically owned) costs around $180K per year in direct taxpayer
subsidies from the City. In turn, it brings $5.5 million dollars
annually into the city and surrounding communities.

If only all of my investments were so good!

Our airlines are only unprofitable due to government meddling. If
they would simpy allow one or two of the majors to go bankrupt and
fold, the whole system would come back into balance, and all would be
well. By artificially propping up bad airlines with loans and
subsidies, NONE of them can be profitable.

This is one case where America is more socialist than Europe -- with
predictably bad results.

GA is not a public service, For us, GA is not a sensible or cost effective
means of transportation

Horse hockey. GA is not a sensible or cost-effective mode of
transportation in your country ONLY because it has been taxed out of
existence. When the cost of avgas is more than 60% tax, you, my
friend, are being royally screwed.

And, don't forget, GA includes "Flight for Life" helicopters, business
charter flights, pilot training, and sight-seeing flights, in addition
to our little jaunts around the country. Your taxes are killing a
lot more than weekend hobby pilots.

There are a lot of people who have weekend homes in Spain, Croatia, France,
Slovenia where you can travel in new modern airliners for about $200 round
trip from all around the UK. Who needs their own aircraft as a means of
transport.

Folks who can afford weekend homes in Spain are probably not thrilled
with public transportation any more than the rest of us, and probably
less so. In this country, many pilots fly their own planes to their
vacation homes, because it is more a comfortable and faster mode of
transportation.

Flying the airlines is worse than riding a bus nowadays. No one in
their right mind would choose it over GA, if only they knew how to
make GA work for them. In that regard, we are the lucky few -- and
it's our duty to educate the masses.

If many people are honest GA (in particular single engine piston) is a crap
means of transportation. What people want is the experience of doing the
flying. Going from A to B is the excuse. Whatever we pay over the odds for
that wherever we are. Its all relative.

While there is a nugget of truth in that (flying IS the journey, after
all), I dare you to complete my recent trip to the East Coast (West
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri) and
back in any airline. The journey simply could not be done in anything
BUT a GA plane, because airlines don't go where we wanted to go.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck schrieb:


Horse hockey. GA is not a sensible or cost-effective mode of
transportation in your country ONLY because it has been taxed out of
existence. When the cost of avgas is more than 60% tax, you, my
friend, are being royally screwed.

these taxes apply to all types of gas we have. we chose our own
government, I bet we would kick their asses if we are too ****ed.

And, don't forget, GA includes "Flight for Life" helicopters, business
charter flights, pilot training, and sight-seeing flights, in addition
to our little jaunts around the country. Your taxes are killing a
lot more than weekend hobby pilots.


we have rescue helicopters etc.


Folks who can afford weekend homes in Spain are probably not thrilled
with public transportation any more than the rest of us, and probably


what is so special 'bout a weekend home in Spain? and don't copy your
sentiments of public transport in the US on any other country in the
world - it won't fit.

less so. In this country, many pilots fly their own planes to their
vacation homes, because it is more a comfortable and faster mode of
transportation.

Flying the airlines is worse than riding a bus nowadays. No one in


in the US, maybe. For sure it became painful because of more
restrictions (terrorism *dooohhh*).

their right mind would choose it over GA, if only they knew how to


having the possibility to fly one way for less than EUR 100,- (sometimes
even only for EUR 20,-) from one corner of Europe to the other there is
almost no need for *private* GA (but for pleasure, of course).

#m
--
I am not a terrorist http://www.casualdisobedience.com/

On 2007-03-17, Borat wrote:
Be ready to weep for me then.
I just got did my FAA IR currency with a couple of approaches to Cambridge
UK. Three times round the hold, an NDB approach and miss followed by
another hold and an ILS approach with a full stop landing cost me £47 or $92
inc tax. The landing itself cost $39 and was "discounted" as an incentive
to use the airport for approaches.

What are you flying? (Is it 2 tonnes?)
I've done the same at our local airport and it didn't cost anything
(Ronaldsway, IOM)

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

Borat wrote:
snip

All aviation in this country is run as a business, airports, airlines and
the ATC. The fact is our airlines are profitable as are the airports which
is more than can be said about the US airlines despite their vast subsidies
from the tax payer. They do this by serving the mass of the public. They do
it pretty well when the equivalent of the whole country goes abroad at least
once a year.
GA is not a public service, For us, GA is not a sensible or cost effective
means of transportation when there are far better alternatives around.

There are a lot of people who have weekend homes in Spain, Croatia, France,
Slovenia where you can travel in new modern airliners for about $200 round
trip from all around the UK. Who needs their own aircraft as a means of
transport.

If many people are honest GA (in particular single engine piston) is a crap
means of transportation. What people want is the experience of doing the
flying. Going from A to B is the excuse. Whatever we pay over the odds for
that wherever we are. Its all relative.

I have a business trip to Glasgow planned for the end of next month. I am
thinking about flying myself, it is 290nm and altogether it is going to take
about 3.5 hours to get there and the same coming back. It is going to cost
me in my Pa 28 about £ 65 an hour or $120 an hour in funny money. Landing
fees at a small airport near Glasgow will be £10.

My secretary booked me flights just in case it is not possible to fly up and
the fare including taxes came to £65.

I can go to Dubrovnik in Croatia for £100 in the same period too.

One just needs to stop kidding oneself about why we fly.

The guys in their Citation Jets etc - they can afford to pay for what they
get - why shed any tears for them.



Wow, airfare in the UK have really come down then. When I looked into
travel in and around the UK the fares were terribly high. This was in
the early '90 when I was traveling to the UK for business.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Jay Honeck wrote:

By artificially propping up bad airlines with loans and
subsidies, NONE of them can be profitable.

None? Better check your numbers again. UPS and Fedex are almost always
profitable. Southwest always is too. Northwest and United are now
profitable and I believe Continental and America West/US Air are too.





Flying the airlines is worse than riding a bus nowadays. No one in
their right mind would choose it over GA, if only they knew how to
make GA work for them. In that regard, we are the lucky few -- and
it's our duty to educate the masses.





While there is a nugget of truth in that (flying IS the journey, after
all),


Depends on the mission. We went to SW Florida for a week at the end of
February. Flying is not the journey in this case but rather a means to
a vacation. I'm not going to **** away four of seven days flying from
here to there and constantly worry about the weather. GA has its uses,
but this ain't one of them.

G. Sylvester wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I have traveled in Europe
and Asia, and you can spot an American easily because they are the
ones who insist on speaking English...


actually English is the universal language...at least for now in Europe
and South America. Even in the depths of Russia (KUF) many people, but
far from a lot, spoke English. Strangely, I just saw one of our
customers I met in Russia in Las Vegas at my company's training center.
Small world.

But the trick is to at least *try* to speak
the language of the country that you are in.

In Japan, even though most people have had
at least 3 years of english in public school,
strangers are reluctant to speak english for
fear of sounding silly or making a mistake.
To get them to use english, all you have to
do is show them how badly you speak japanese.