"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
Seriously, the equitable distribution of aviation infrastructure costs
should be paid by those who benefit from the fruits of aviation
activity, both directly and indirectly, which includes most everyone
in today's modern world. But, if European governments traditionally
subsidizes aviation infrastructure, doesn't that reasonably obligate
the US do the same, or face a relative decline in US aviation
viability?
I agree with the article that we could very well have additionaly
fees in the US.
Mike
MU-2
It's seldom indeed, that expenses diminish over time. But, I fear the
consequences of privatizing ATC will mirror the massive damage caused
by deregulating electricity in California. There would likely be too
grand an opportunity for big business to price gouge the public; one
would expect the government to lack such avaricious motives.
It is always difficult to come up with a "fair" system. What is fair?
Equal pay for equal service? Taxation that produces equal pain? Everybody
paying an equal percentage? All are fair. All are unfair.
If we go to a user fee system, how will we price it? Should the same flight
by a 172 and a 747 be charged the same? It costs the same to separate each
blip.
I disagree with the notion that people shouldn't have to pay for services
that add safety. Why not? Should everyone venturing into the woods be
provided with a satellite phone and locator beacon at government expense?
My personal philosophy on whether I should pay user fees is that I am
already paying $10K/week in taxes and that should cover all the services
that I recieve, particularly since they don't even deliver the mail to my
house.
Unfortunately, if we go to a user fee system, it will probably be written
mostly by/for the airlines who pay no taxes and are bailed out on a regular
basis at taxpayer expense.
Mike
MU-2