A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Avgas in France has reached $7.50/gal !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old April 23rd 05, 03:46 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Morgans wrote:
Good Lord help us all! I suppose they will be made with China steel.

That
is the softest, inconsistent crap have ever seen, let alone all the

other
made in China crap.


Unlikely - Diamond's planes are made of plastic!



OHMYGOD!! They'll sneak it through the metal detectors!! :~)

I know you are kidding, but I am sure there are some VERY important steel
parts in the "plastic" airplane, too. ;-)


The relief tubes?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO


  #352  
Old April 23rd 05, 03:48 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Does the tax on Jet-A and other fees support the airlines usages?


The passenger and fuel taxes are all mixed together. I used avgas tax
and
FSS because almost all the FSS users are flying piston engine airplanes.
There really aren't any other fees that don't go to the airport owner.

Has anyone ever done a complete breakout of costs vs. revenue of the
air
transport system at all levels?

If you consider that most of the system exists for the airlines, with GA

as
an incremental user then the airlines are getting a pretty good deal.


Considering the spartan facilities GA uses, compared to the regal
infrastructure the airlines require, GA is dirt cheap.



Not really if you consider that most airports exist soley for GA. The
taxes on GA don't cover the services and facilities that GA uses exclusively


If
you divide the cost among all users by the number of flights then GA is
getting a good deal. People try to parse the facts to support their
position. Another way to look at it is that GA pilots and companies with
business aircraft pay income taxes and most airlines do not.


And GA didn't get $$$BILLIONS in handout in the wake of 9/11.

The airlines
would counter that they pay wages and their employees pay taxes. It goes

on
forever.


Cyclically.

One thing is clear though; piston GA is not paying its way through
fuel taxes as many believe. If the airplane burns 10GPH and flys

100hrs/yr
the fuel tax is only about $200/yr which doesn't cover much of anything.

Interestingly, I recall a few articles a few years ago the
over-the-road
trucks pay roughly half of taxes and fees for the interstate and state
highways, but they cause more than 3/4ths of wear-and-tear and damage.

I recall a statistic that one max weight semi truck caused as much damage

as
2300cars over the same road. This implies that trucking is indeed
subsidized.


Trucks like to have stickers on their cab/trailers that "I paid $xxx in
taxes last year", but the amounts certain;y are not coincident with the
damage they cause. Never mind that many are way OVER max.

Hell, I paid $900 in Colorado property tax on my bird last year and it
certainly didn't go into the CAF.

The railroads have to maintain their own tracks. The system
doesn't change because there are more truckers than railroads.

When someone else foots the bill, new and more efficient processes and
technologies never seem to get implemented as quickly as when we pay
our
own
way (like good, mature adults).

Yes I would support an IFR system like in the UK. You fly without radar
separation below certain altitudes and you don't have to talk to ATC.

AFAIK
there has never been a collision.


"Midair collisions are extremely rare. In 1999, for instance, only 18
midair
collisions occurred, of which 9 involved fatalities. A fatal midair
collision, therefore, occurred only once in every 3 million flying hours
(based on an estimated 27 million hours flown in 1999)." -- AOPA GA Fact
Sheet

Only two of the 18 (AIUI) were under ATC control. ??



I don't think that any of them were during the enroute phase of flight.

Mike
MU-2


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO




  #353  
Old April 23rd 05, 03:50 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays for
all the roads


are you claiming that, in the USA, the only source of funds to pay for
roads is
the tax on gas? In MA we have this excise tax which I thought paid for
part
of the road infrastructure.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like


No only federal highway funding. State and county roads are funded
differently.

Mike
MU-2


  #354  
Old April 23rd 05, 03:50 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in
:

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/ (EU vs. USA) by a think tank in
Stockholm, Sweden Read particularly the summary at the bottom and some
of he charts comparing the various EU countries against the US.


Of course, the results of such surveys depend on the political leanings
of the authors. Authors who favour a neoliberal policy will come to
results that portray the US as better, so to encourage Europeans to
mimick American policies. Economics isn't a science,


Paul Krugman thinks it is...at least Keynesian economics, that is.


it's ideology to a
large extent.


Find the source of their data and report back.


Regards


Refute



  #355  
Old April 23rd 05, 03:51 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in
:

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/ (EU vs. USA) by a think tank in
Stockholm, Sweden Read particularly the summary at the bottom and some
of he charts comparing the various EU countries against the US.


Of course, the results of such surveys depend on the political leanings
of the authors. Authors who favour a neoliberal policy will come to
results that portray the US as better, so to encourage Europeans to
mimick American policies. Economics isn't a science, it's ideology to a
large extent.


Very true!

Mike
MU-2


  #356  
Old April 23rd 05, 03:55 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Does the tax on Jet-A and other fees support the airlines usages?


The passenger and fuel taxes are all mixed together. I used avgas tax
and
FSS because almost all the FSS users are flying piston engine

airplanes.
There really aren't any other fees that don't go to the airport owner.

Has anyone ever done a complete breakout of costs vs. revenue of the
air
transport system at all levels?

If you consider that most of the system exists for the airlines, with

GA
as
an incremental user then the airlines are getting a pretty good deal.


Considering the spartan facilities GA uses, compared to the regal
infrastructure the airlines require, GA is dirt cheap.



Not really if you consider that most airports exist soley for GA.


I'd bet that Denver Intl (Frederico Pena's monument to himself) cost as much
as the rest of GA airports combined

The
taxes on GA don't cover the services and facilities that GA uses

exclusively

I don't think that any of them were during the enroute phase of flight.

It doesn't say.


  #357  
Old April 23rd 05, 03:57 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news Given that only a small percentage of Chineese are participating in

their
"new" economy, it will be a long time before this happens. Remember

that
Japan's economy stalled after they became (and remain) the richest
developed
nation on a per capita basis.


Even after their economy puked, what, 2/3rds of it's value?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO



How are you arriving at that?

What was the NIKKEI at it's peak and bottom? It's now at 11,045 and wasn't
it at around 40,000 at it's peak in 1990?



That is ridculous. Economies are not measured by stock market valuations.
The GDP of Japan is larger now than ever before. How would you rate the US
economy on that metric? The Nasdaq is down 61% from its high five years
ago.

Mike
MU-2


  #359  
Old April 23rd 05, 04:02 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news Given that only a small percentage of Chineese are participating in

their
"new" economy, it will be a long time before this happens. Remember

that
Japan's economy stalled after they became (and remain) the richest
developed
nation on a per capita basis.


Even after their economy puked, what, 2/3rds of it's value?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO


How are you arriving at that?

What was the NIKKEI at it's peak and bottom? It's now at 11,045 and

wasn't
it at around 40,000 at it's peak in 1990?



That is ridculous. Economies are not measured by stock market valuations.


Oh, and what DO they measure?

The GDP of Japan is larger now than ever before.


Got some NET numbers?

How would you rate the US
economy on that metric?


I'd say it's pretty ****ty, regardless of what the Repubs say.

The Nasdaq is down 61% from its high five years
ago.


Yup and many are STILL paying the price. I know several engineers that are
making 1/4th what they were five years ago.

Seems the only thing that grown is government.





  #360  
Old April 23rd 05, 04:09 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"G Farris" wrote in message
...
In article , re says...


Of course, the results of such surveys depend on the political leanings
of the authors. Authors who favour a neoliberal policy will come to
results that portray the US as better, so to encourage Europeans to
mimick American policies.


Of course this is true.



Gee, what is that, a mantra?

Nevertheless, I think all will agree that there is a productivity problem

in
Europe.


Well, if the econmic studies are all bogus, how do you come to that
conclusion?

What the hell is it with all this post-modernist bull****?


French workers have the shortest working week of any country in the
world, and are on the higher end in pay scale (though lower than Germany,
Japan or the US). Their productivity in no way justifies such little work,

and
when you add in the cost of all their social benefits, and their strikes

to
ask for eben more social benefits and even less work it is not surprising

that
they are not competitive on a global scale in most industries.


So how do you KNOW that? That's just your "opinion"!!

I think the big ideological difference is not in the assessment of the
situation, but in the proposed remedies, which will be diametrically

opposed,
depending on which side of the political spectrum one favors.


Yes, governments of ALL stripes think that the economies they screwed up
should give them MORE moeny and power. That's the essence of Keynesianism.

"Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following
book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a
totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a
given output produced under conditions of free competition and a lance
measure of laissez-faire." (Keynes 1973 [1936]: xxvi: cf. Martin 1971:
200-5; Hazlitt [1959]1973: 277; Brunner 1987: 38ff.; Hayek 1967: 346)









 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soaring near Paris, France (Not Texas :-) [email protected] Soaring 17 November 13th 04 07:39 PM
News from France HECTOP Piloting 12 April 1st 04 01:16 AM
Russia joins France and Germany captain! Military Aviation 12 September 9th 03 09:56 AM
France Bans the Term 'E-Mail' bsh Military Aviation 38 July 26th 03 03:18 PM
"France downplays jet swap with Russia" Mike Military Aviation 8 July 21st 03 05:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.