GA paying fair (fare?) share

Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
could just about throw up.

Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

Let's see how well they can compete with the charters if they start having
to fly right traffic while announcing their position when the tower goes
away.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
could just about throw up.

Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

How do you figure that?

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
could just about throw up.

Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

How do you figure that?




Because GA (non-biz jet) uses very little of the ATC capacity
(Tower/TRACON/Center/etc.).

No Spam

"No Spam" wrote in message
...

Because GA (non-biz jet) uses very little of the ATC capacity
(Tower/TRACON/Center/etc.).


Why exclude biz-jets?

So what would be equitable?

A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a TOTAL free
ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable. We (as GA) have
been getting a hell of a deal, in my mind.

On the other hand.. paying 50 bucks for a flight briefing and another 50
for flight following for me in a spam can would be prohibitive in the
long run (since i flight follow on almost every flight out of the pattern).

Dave


Dude wrote:

Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
could just about throw up.

Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

Let's see how well they can compete with the charters if they start having
to fly right traffic while announcing their position when the tower goes
away.

Except that the ATC system was put in place because the airline demanded
it. Look at the history, going back to the 1920's. I'd be perfectly
happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.

Dave S wrote:
So what would be equitable?

A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a TOTAL free
ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable. We (as GA) have
been getting a hell of a deal, in my mind.

On the other hand.. paying 50 bucks for a flight briefing and another 50
for flight following for me in a spam can would be prohibitive in the
long run (since i flight follow on almost every flight out of the pattern).

Dave


Dude wrote:

Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
could just about throw up.

Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

Let's see how well they can compete with the charters if they start
having
to fly right traffic while announcing their position when the tower goes
away.

Dave S wrote:

A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a TOTAL free
ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable.

No. **YOU** do the same thing for driving our cars on the interstate
highway system.

Who pays for establishment of, and maintenance thereof, said highways?
The Feds, of course. Is there some sort of convoluted rate structure
for users, based on their weights, or any other measure? No, there isn't.

It's a universally-accepted burden on the US taxpayer. Is the national
airspace system different? Why?

This isn't an issue of "who gets a *free ride*" There are things the
federal government ought to be doing with our tax dollars for the
greater good.

*YOU* want to pay more taxes for the privilege of flying? Fine with me.
But, this business of "total free ride" doesn't wash. I don't pay
extra for every red light I encounter when I drive, and I see a parallel
with every (free) flight service station pre-flight briefing I get.

These things are bona-fide tax-supported gov'ment responsibilities.
It's the diversion of said tax dollars to support social re-engineering
I vehemently object to.

Rip wrote:

I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.

Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?

CriticalMass wrote:
Rip wrote:

I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.


Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?



That works, no vor, no adf, no dg . Pure GPS .

Ok.. so by your own statement, the Feds outta pay for it..

How about every registered N number contributes one share in
registration tax, just like every licence plate/vehicle registration on
cars pays a portion. Remember, the states maintain this "federal"
system, and not all of its cost comes from federal funds. And, if I do
recall, commercial trucks pay additional taxes and fees to engage in
interstate and intrastate commerce, so there are "user fees" to engage
in commercial carriage on said highways and interstates. You also pay
fees if your wheeled vehicle's gross weight is over a certain amount
(80,000 pounds in many states) and operated on public roads. (or if its
too long, too wide, too tall or doesnt look purty enough... well all
except the last one)

Something tells me you wont like a 152 paying equal share to a 747-400,
but the airline exec's would prolly **** themselves in glee if the
"automobile" analogy came to pass. Imagine.. every N-number pays $1000
(or maybe $10,000)a year in a fly-tax to keep that N-number valid. Drop
in the bucket to the airlines, and quite painful for people like you and
me. THats what I would want to avoid. Try compromising.

So.. lets see.. a total free ride.. I build my lil 4 seat 200 mph IFR
capable experimental, get it signed off, use auto gas (and not pay any
aviation fuel tax.. and since its OFF ROAD, I can also dodge the state
fuel taxes too), get a flight service briefing from a live briefer.. (i
just dont FEEL like dealing with duats, in this hypothetical example). I
file IFR or use flight following for all of its percieved benefits, and
land only at places that dont have government imposed ramp/landing fees.
Tell me how I have not gotten a total free ride on the back of the
airspace system? Is it my RIGHT to have major elements of my hobby (or
maybe future career, or what have you) subsidized on the backs of
others? On the same note, I dont think a cessna 152 using NAS benefits
and facilities should be liable for the same fraction that a dumbojet is
liable for.

Im not VOLUNTEERING to pay more taxes, but on the same token, without
attracting all the rabid junkyard dogs I would like to suggest that
perhaps an equitable solution for EVERYONE involved lies somewhere other
than what the present status quo is. Speaking of the status quo, if I
recall correctly, the airlines get a break on the aviation fuel tax, so
they are not paying the same per gallon that us little guys do. I will
have to re-read Boyer's letter to refresh my memory on that.

I pay my AOPA dues, and in general I think they do a good job of
protecting my interests, or at least getting issues I agree with heard
and noted. I dont think a small GA plane should be liable for the same
amount that an airliner should. Im thinking weight or seats would be a
good gauge, or have everyone pay the same fuel tax rate. It is worth
noting that Northwest chose to make a LOCAL issue into a national one
using their inflight magazine, with others jumping on the bandwagon.

Im sorry if I came across sounding like a philantrophic lotto winner..
thats not the case, but I do try to seem SOMEWHAT objective when the
notion strikes me. I'm not made of greenbacks either. I have to work OT
to go flying, and I have to work a LOT of OT to take major trips. That
being said, I would hate to see GA as a group dig in its heels and not
attempt to address this reasonably. We might win the battle, and lose
the war (hmm... ATC is no longer inherently governmental.. lets go
PRIVATIZE ATC and bill every system user like they do in some parts of
Europe). I'd hate to see us paying for ATC specialists billable-hours or
something perverse like that.

Flame suit on.
Dave



CriticalMass wrote:
Dave S wrote:

A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a
per-user fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a
hard time seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST
the avgas fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a
TOTAL free ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable.


No. **YOU** do the same thing for driving our cars on the interstate
highway system.

Who pays for establishment of, and maintenance thereof, said highways?
The Feds, of course. Is there some sort of convoluted rate structure
for users, based on their weights, or any other measure? No, there isn't.

It's a universally-accepted burden on the US taxpayer. Is the national
airspace system different? Why?

This isn't an issue of "who gets a *free ride*" There are things the
federal government ought to be doing with our tax dollars for the
greater good.

*YOU* want to pay more taxes for the privilege of flying? Fine with me.
But, this business of "total free ride" doesn't wash. I don't pay
extra for every red light I encounter when I drive, and I see a parallel
with every (free) flight service station pre-flight briefing I get.

These things are bona-fide tax-supported gov'ment responsibilities. It's
the diversion of said tax dollars to support social re-engineering I
vehemently object to.