GA User fees

That site is not maintained by an unbiased organization. The DOT is
trying to get more funding for a wasteful FAA, from a Congress who
insists Amtrak is necessary. Rather odd also for a gov't agency to
criticize its own programs. You're not even presenting DOT's data
fairly, as that site shows per passenger mile funding for rail and
transit is huge; for all of aviation a peanut. Unfavorable per/mile
comparisons for GA and air carrier is phony too, as GA flys shorter
hops. NY to LA in even a T210 is an excellent adventure. By any chance,
is your name "Ned?" Well, we don't get French benefits.

Fred F.

The dollar amount of the federal funding is known with certainty. How
they estimate passenger miles, I don't know.

Why is this biased? Does AOPA publish its data detailing why FAA funding
problems are false?

TaxSrv wrote:

Another aspect is much of the money now
comes from the airline ticket tax, and under user fees that's gone, so
the airlines would have to pay their user fees as a pure expense item.

Most of the push for user fees comes from the larger airlines. As it is, their
tickets are the most expensive, so they're paying more in taxes than short haul
providers. Put user fees in and the short haulers pay more. They're making more
takeoffs and landings, so they use more ATC services. The big carriers would pay
less because their flights tend to be longer with fewer T/Os and Ls.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:E0Jqf.50535$CL.1678@trnddc04...

Most of the push for user fees comes from the larger airlines. As it is,
their tickets are the most expensive, so they're paying more in taxes than
short haul providers. Put user fees in and the short haulers pay more.
They're making more takeoffs and landings, so they use more ATC services.
The big carriers would pay less because their flights tend to be longer
with fewer T/Os and Ls.


I don't see how that follows. How does more takeoffs and landings mean more
ATC services?

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I don't see how that follows. How does more takeoffs and landings mean more
ATC services?

More operations

More time in the terminal area

More time transitioning altitudes.

That *wouldn't* result in more ATC services?

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

More operations


So?



More time in the terminal area


So?



More time transitioning altitudes.


So?



That *wouldn't* result in more ATC services?


I don't see how. Do you?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

I don't see how that follows. How does more takeoffs and landings mean
more
ATC services?

How many transmissions per hour would be involved for an airliner cruising
at altitude, and how many would be required for one that is landing and
taking off again, and also how many different people are involved for one
taking off and landing?
--
Jim in NC

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


That *wouldn't* result in more ATC services?


I don't see how. Do you?

yep.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

yep.


Explain.

Here's the latest on GA user fees (from AOPA) -- yes -- I know that
Skyloon" will howl and bark at the moon about this one:



"USER FEES COULD HURT THOSE WHO WANT THEM THE MOST
Many of the nation's biggest airlines are the strongest advocates for
user fees. But a new white paper, "Turbulence ahead: How user fees
could ground the FAA," prepared by aviation industry expert Darryl
Jenkins,
shows that user fees could hurt both consumers and the airlines."
Jenkins' research adds to the evidence that AOPA has been presenting
against user fees," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "A user-fee funded
aviation system is bad public policy, strongly opposed by general
aviation pilots and, ironically, potentially harmful to the very people
that it is supposed to benefit." Jenkins reiterated AOPA's position that
the current FAA funding system works just fine. "There is no evidence
to justify radical changes in the aviation tax and fee system," Jenkins
wrote in the white paper prepared for the National Air Traffic
Controllers
Association. "Every available industry indicator relating to the FAA--
including passenger volume and yield--is on the rise." (Boyer said the
same thing before Congress last May.) Jenkins says user fees would be
"financial disaster" for U.S. airlines, because when revenue from user
fees decreases for any reason (typically, a soft economy), airlines and
other stakeholders would have to make up the shortfall. "Airlines in
financial difficulty could avoid paying millions of dollars in user fees
by filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The resulting shortfall
would have to be made up by other users," Jenkins said. "Do we really
want air traffic control or other FAA services subject to the same
economic vagaries that have ravaged the airlines?" See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...51222user.html )."

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

How many transmissions per hour would be involved for an airliner cruising
at altitude, and how many would be required for one that is landing and
taking off again, and also how many different people are involved for one
taking off and landing?


Location, location, location. An airliner cruising at altitude may have to
be placed in sequence hundreds of miles from the destination. A short
hauler might be doing a visual approach to a nontowered field.

What constitutes an "ATC service" in your mind?