by Al Gilson Feb 7, 2006 at 05:48 PM


Mr. Sky-Loon's handle is live, ski or die. The recreational
skiing/snowboarding industry is heavily subsidized via extremely low
lease rates on US Forest Service and/or Federal BLM land. If Skylune
(and all skiers) were forced to pay the real cost of their hobby, they
would be sitting at home.

It is true that some ski areas sit on federal lands. So what? You fly
in federally owned airspace, should you lease that?

The point: Direct tax subsidies (the AIP capital grants or the $150K
operating subsidy) go to GA airports, because the airports revenues don't
cover expenses. Can't really blame the airports for that, as that was how
the system was designed -- federally subsidized. That is what is now under
discussion in the budget.

So, your argument holds no water. Sorry. When federal tax revenues go to
bolster ski area operations and build lifts (using AOPA logiic, this would
be very justified by huge economic benefits --- you can determine this
benefit by adding up the payroll of every employer for 50 miles around),
then you can make a comparison.

So, No, I will not worry that the price of lift tickets will be at all
affected by the federal budget. Since you think skiing and GA are equally
subsidized, you should also have no concern that the price of flying will
go up.


Anyway, FAA has heard all the arguments. Now, they will decide. Soon.
I'll be skiing.