GA User fees

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:33:48 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

I believe you are right on this point. But let's look at the numbers.

The avgas tax is $0.193/gallon. If my plane burns 10 gph I am paying a tax
of $1.93/hour. If I fly 50 hours per year I pay $96.50 per year to use the
system. If I stop flying altogether is the FAA going to be able to reduce
it's expenses $96.50/year? If I double the amount I fly is the FAA going to
have to increase their annual budget $96.50 to cover the cost?

If there's a recession and everyone is forced to cut back on flying or
a national emergency forces shutting down GA flying, how would FAA
cope with the loss of revenue? Would they lay off controllers, as
might be done with a private enterrprise?

RK Henry

Skylune wrote:
In fact, I have posted the link several times in the past.

I stand corrected on link posting. Still, it would be helpful to some.
OK, it would have been helpful to me. I suspect others would have found
it useful too.

Since you already did the work for the person that chooses to just go with the AOPA
company line, rather than looking at the other data.......

Not sure how you take Tom's post as choosing to "just go with the AOPA
party line" since he was asking where the information was, and how it
supported your opinion. Both seem like a reasonable questions to me.

Again, the John Adams quote: "Facts are stubborn things..."

If by facts you mean the budget and expense numbers from FAA data, the
debate is not over the those. It is over whether the FAA funding
mechanism is fair.....and everyone involved defines fair in their own way.


"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please." Mark Twain

"Steve A" wrote:
...
If by facts you mean the budget and expense numbers from
FAA data, the debate is not over the those. It is over
whether the FAA funding mechanism is fair.....and everyone
involved defines fair in their own way.


I don't think the debate really is over fairness, as I read recent
Congressional testimony on this. Ever since Congress let FAA dip into
the improvement fund for, in effect, FAA operating money, the air
carriers' position is that fund is "broken" and is now inadequately
funded for capital improvements to big airports. The amount of money
which could realistically come from GA in user fees has to be petty cash
to the airline industry. Probably around 90% of GA would avoid using
any services where possible. 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.

Fred F.

In article CfAqf.856$dh2.160@trndny08,
"Steve Foley" wrote:

The AV gas taxes more than cover the incremental cost that GA adds to the
equation. It does not cover the excessive amounts that the FAA wastes.


"Skylune" wrote in message

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

The whole issue is irrelevant, as "Skyloon" is pushing *ONLY* GA user
fees. He doesn't object to subsidies for bike lanes, backpackers,
skiiers, boaters and a myriad of other activities.

He is, therefore, nothing but a hypocritical troll, and should be
treated as such.

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

Orville writes:

...He doesn't object to subsidies for bike lanes, backpackers,
skiiers, boaters and a myriad of other activities..

Of course I don't object to things which exist only in your feculent
imagination. Subsidies for skiers: LOL.

..He doesn't object to subsidies for bike lanes, backpackers,
skiiers, boaters and a myriad of other activities..

Of course I don't object to things which exist only in your feculent
imagination.

Bike lanes are most assuredly subsidized. There are no tolls on bicycle
lanes, there are no "user fees" for bikes, and people can ride on them
free even if they were specially constructed for bicycles. The concrete
doesn't come for nothing - guess who is paying.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by Jose Dec 22, 2005 at 07:47 PM


Bike lanes are most assuredly subsidized. There are no tolls on bicycle
lanes, there are no "user fees" for bikes, and people can ride on them
free even if they were specially constructed for bicycles. The concrete
doesn't come for nothing - guess who is paying

Jose: Here's the scoop on subsidies. True that the recently passed
TEA-21 had some capital funding for bike lanes and other forms of pork.

If you want to check out the various forms of federal tax subsidies by
mode of transportation, this link has some of the raw data. Note that
highways are actually NEGATIVELY subsidized (i.e. federal gasoline taxes
provide more revenues than federal highway funding).

Heaviest subsidies are for aviation as well as public transportation
systems and AMTRAK.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...portation.html

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by Jose Dec 22, 2005 at 07:47 PM


Bike lanes are most assuredly subsidized. There are no tolls on bicycle
lanes, there are no "user fees" for bikes, and people can ride on them
free even if they were specially constructed for bicycles. The concrete
doesn't come for nothing - guess who is paying

Jose: Here's the scoop on subsidies. True that the recently passed
TEA-21 had some capital funding for bike lanes and other forms of pork.

If you want to check out the various forms of federal tax subsidies by
mode of transportation, this link has some of the raw data. Note that
highways are actually NEGATIVELY subsidized (i.e. federal gasoline taxes
provide more revenues than federal highway funding).

Heaviest subsidies are for aviation as well as public transportation
systems and AMTRAK.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...portation.html







Yeah Loon, you've posted that before and the question remains how the hell
do they even know how many pax miles GA has flown? If they don't know that
how can they possibly come up with a legitimate $/mile figure?

"Skylune" wrote:

Heaviest subsidies are for aviation as well as public transportation
systems and AMTRAK.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...portation.html


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.

Note that
highways are actually NEGATIVELY subsidized (i.e. federal gasoline taxes
provide more revenues than federal highway funding).

Yes, AAA makes a point of that all the time. The argument (and it's not
unreasonable) is that by subsidizing public transport, drivers benefit
by having fewer other cars on the road. This is, in fact, a very real
benefit to drivers. It also happens to be a benefit to subway riders.

All transportation is linked like this. No piece can be fairly
considered in isolation.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.