"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

The majority of small planes you see on sunny weekends are flown by pilots
flying around in circles just for the fun of it, or looking for someplace
to land (like a hamburger stand.) Most people with discretionary dollars
would rather spend them elsewhere.

The upcoming price increases (new or raised landing fees, tie-down fees,
etc.) due to reduction of federal tax subsidies to GA will also hurt the
business, because it is currently heavily subsidized by commercial air
passengers and taxpayers in general.

I don't think 'the upcoming price increases' will hurt 'the majority of
small planes you see on sunny weekends'.

Very simply, I will not land at towered airports, nor will I file flight
plans or use flight following. This will not greatly change my flying
habits. I don't frequent towered fields. I'll go there if I have a need. I
don't usually get flight following unless I'm flying near or thorugh
controlled airspace.

I fly from a privately owned field. If the present fuel tax is replaced by
user fees, my costs will actually decrease. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure
any user fees will be in addition to fuel texes.


The AOPA does its best to misinform people of the supposed benefits of GA
(see GA Serving America website, which abounds with misinformation and
propaganda designed to get people to foolishly sign up for flight
training. Most who do quickly realize the real state of affairs and
wisely quit.)

In my opinion AOPA is a lobbying group. They wouldn't be doing a very good
job if they didn't try everything under the sun to promote their agenda.
They're very good at what they do.



So
Virtually no private pilot will agree that GA is subsidized (despite the
facts)

It certainly is, but even without recreational GA, most of the
infrastructure would still be needed. I truely believe that the incremental
cost of recreational GA to 'the system' is small.


, or that pollution,

But the airlines claim that GA uses so little fuel that it needs to change
the billing model. So how much pollution can it produce when it uses so
little fuel? (In reality, It would be a good idea if pollution could be
reduced, but I gotta argue first)


increasing populations around formerly rural
airstrips, etc.

Caveat Emptor !


They will blame politicians,
insurers, lawyers, anti-pollution, anti-noise, and anti-GA activists for
the industry's problems.


Everything is the fault of lawyers and insurance companies!!!

They want the world to revert to 1955,
consistent with the level of technology of their planes.

Just don't take away my GPS