This is a useful discussion on this hot topic. Thank you for your
contribution. I know it can be tedious, but to the extent that
information is brought to light it is worth it. I welcome your
continued thoughtful input.

On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum"
wrote in
:

On May 24, 3:12*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
*I saw
in the articles you authored, a reasonable person, employed in the
airline industry, with the potential to bring a fresh point of view to
this argument. *I was hoping to be made more deeply aware of the air
carriers' point of view, so that I could better understand the basis
upon which it rests. *I'm still hopeful, but ...

Dont get your hopes up G. My main point was that the airlines would
like to see the operators who use the system help fund it. You can
take this as anti GA if you like .

I believe the 'free ride' you imply isn't occurring. If you are able
to provide supporting statistics for your position, please trot them
out here into the light of day, so we can examine the facts, not
innuendo.


Because I can go out to an uncontrolled field, and depart, fly to
another such airport, and never avail myself of _ANY_ ATC facilities,
I believe that if ATC (and/or the airlines) were to disappear
tomorrow, GA would do fine, and air carriers would be out of business.
Air carriers demand ATC, or they would be falling out of the sky like
hail in Arkansas; GA does not.

Are you kidding ?

No. Do you believe the airlines can function without ATC? Do you
believe GA will die without ATC?

Every airport in the LA basin, including all but one
of the privately owned airports has benefited from federal funding.

Are you attempting to imply, that GA does not contribute to AIP
funding?

If ATC were to vanish, how would anyone fly IFR without major delays ?

IFR operation isn't critical to the vast majority of GA operations, so
the point you raise is a red herring. IFR operations are critical to
air carriers, and they should fund it, and any upgrades to ATC that
they require. Simple.

Considering the fact that modernizing NAS will result in less ATC your
last statement is kinda ironic .

No.

I presume you are referring to NextGen providing computerized ATC in
lieu of meat-based controllers. But, ATC it is none the less, and it
the airlines who would be out of business without it, not the vast
majority of GA.

Further, your blind acceptance of NextGen's benefits despite it's
flaws, reveals a certain naïveté; you've bought Boeing's duplicitous
bilge without doing any research or thinking for yourself, and if find
it telling that there has been on mention of the total cost of
NextGen. It's another large corporate attempt to provide an inferior
product at an exorbitant cost similar to the USAF tanker lease
proposal that was exposed for the boondoggle it was, not to mention
the criminal offences involved.


The money to fund private aviation comes out of the owners' pockets,
or wasn't that the 'this' to which you were referring? *

Virtually all of GA is subsidized . This is what I was refering to.

Can you please provide some credible evidence to support that
allegation, as I have done with the majority of my assertions?

I hope you're not trying to equate GA with the airline bailouts
provided by tax payers. If you want to discuss subsidies:


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...1274/index.htm
The airline bailout bounty
February 21 2007: 7:52 AM EST
(Fortune Magazine)-- Four major airline bankruptcies and thousands
of layoffs later, 2001's $15 billion airline-bailout bill hardly
looks like taxpayer money brilliantly spent.

The bailout bill authorized $5 billion in direct grants and up to
$10 billion in loan guarantees for airlines.



http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1/b3752735.htm
Congress opened up the Treasury to the airline industry. Lawmakers
coughed up $5 billion in emergency aid and agreed to guarantee up
to $10 billion in borrowings.




* *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite..._editorial.pdf
* * ... Private aircraft operators also do not pay ticket taxes to
* * fund the FAA. * Last year the FAA spent $6 billion operating the
* * Air Traffic Control system in the U.S. *This service is free of
* * charge for private aircraft operators. *Why? *Because the
* * commercial airlines pay taxes collected from you to pay for the
* * operation of a system that all air travelers use.

Now honestly Lar, what is it about RA's statement here that is
ditribe ?

Nothing, as 'ditribe' is not a word. Even if you meant 'diatribe,'
it's not that either. It's just profoundly misleading.

There is no ticket tax on GA flights, because there are no tickets
issued for the vast majority of GA operations. Clearly Richard
Anderson's statement is meant to incite public furor against GA by
deceptive rhetoric. Shameful.

Are you going MX on me ?

I have no idea what that means.



* * Private aviation operators do pay fuel excise tax, as do all
* * commercial airlines--but that is about the extent of private
* * aviation's funding for airports. *At NWA, We believe an airport's
* * operating costs should be borne by all who use them, including
* * those who travel by private aircraft. *

Here again, you are supporting my side.

I am attempting to be fair and balanced by quoting Richard Anderson.

What is the proportion in dollars of AIP funding granted airline hub
airports compared to GA airports? I suspect, that airline hub
airports receive the lion's share of AIP funding. Again, Richard
Anderson is implying that GA receives a disproportionate subsidy to
what it contributes. I have seen no evidence to support that notion.

This is something that Boyer chooses to ignore.

Perhaps Boyer was being tactful by not outing Richard Anderson's
blatant attempt to obfuscate the issue.

I dont think RA wants to mess with the guy who is flying his Cub out
of a rural airport under VFR.

Because those types of GA operations rival air carrier operations in
number, that distinction should be publicly voiced by the airline
industry, and those GA stakeholders shouldn't be financially impacted
in the proposed NextGen implementation.


We can argue till the cows come home but if you look at it from a
per use standpoint, Biz Av is getting a free ride in this country.

Is Biz Av receiving government bail out funding? Now that's a free
ride worth examining. How many GA operators received bail out grants?

In any event, the vast majority of GA operations are not Biz AV, but
the airline industry fails to acknowledge the distinction.



* *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-2-025x.html
* * Apr. 15, 2004 — AOPA on Thursday defended general aviation against
* * a USA Today editorial that claims airline passengers "subsidize"
* * general aviation. In an opposing view piece published alongside
* * the paper's editorial, AOPA President Phil Boyer explained to USA
* * Today readers that the current system is a single structure,
* * designed for the airlines.

Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the
system has been put in place to suport GA.

If you believe that a significant proportion of the system has been
put in place to support GA, perhaps you'll be good enough to cite some
credible figures. Otherwise, I'll just ignore such unsupported
claims, as it's not possible to debate such nebulous assertions.

Also, I wouldnt put much stock in Useless Today.

Agreed. But appropriately, they were the newspaper that saw fit to
carry Richard Anderson's BS.


* * "Our elected representatives in Congress wisely created a national
* * air transportation system," Boyer wrote. And just as trucks —
* * which place a greater strain on the national highway system — pay
* * higher taxes and fees than family cars, the airlines must carry a
* * greater portion of the financial burden for the nation's air
* * traffic control system.

This is a good point but it fails to address the main argument. This
is where Phil just makes himself look silly IMHO.

Without your specific clarification of your objection to Mr. Boyer's
statement, it's not possible to debate your assertion.


* * The USA Today editorial was prompted by and uses much of the same
* * rhetoric as an editorial that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard
* * Anderson wrote for his airline's in-flight magazine.

Blurring a serious distinction here.

What implied distinction are you making here?


* * The USA Today editorial claims incorrectly that most GA flights
* * use air traffic control separation services. In fact, the vast
* * majority of GA flights are conducted under visual flight rules,
* * requiring only minimal contact with controllers and placing almost
* * no direct burden on the system.

Doing it again.

Well stop doing it. :-)

If you've got something to say, state it succinctly. Innuendo isn't
going to persuade anyone to your view.


* * "The air traffic control system is designed to serve the
* * airlines," wrote Boyer in USA Today. "Most small planes use few,
* * if any, of these services.

And some more.

So you are unable to refute Mr. Boyer's assertions?


* * "The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a
* * gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the
* * system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay."

Simply untrue.

Specifically what do you believe would be more correct?


* * This all stems from a dispute between Northwest and the airport
* * authority at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The
* * Metropolitan Airport Commission also runs six reliever airports
* * that improve efficiency for Northwest at MSP by moving most GA
* * traffic elsewhere, and uses some of the funds collected at MSP for
* * improvements at the relievers.

Exactly what I was pointing out with LAX.


What do you believe is important about that?




Perhaps the real problem in this airline v. GA argument stems from the
ambiguity of the term GA. *Airlines see GA as Part 135 operations. But
the vast majority of GA operations are private reciprocating-engine
aircraft. *The airlines continue to fail to differentiate Part 135
operations from Part 91 operations. *Part 135 operations are a small
subset of GA operations, and the air carriers' failure to use the
correct terminology is causing them to meet significant resistance to
their proposals. *Somebody needs to tell the Air Transport Association
to substitute 'air-taxi' for GA in their press releases and lobbying.

Totally baseless.

Totally? Don't you believe that the vast majority of GA operations
are conducted with private reciprocating-engine aircraft operating
VFR? Don't you believe that there should be a distinction drawn
between those operations and Biz Av?

You can operate a biz jet 91 right along with 135
operators and 121 operators into the same airports. What does this
have to do with carrying the ATC burden?


I was attempting to justify the air carriers' adversarial position
toward light, recip-engine GA, but it's clear there is none warranted.


The air carrier costs you mention seem equitable to me.

Dont miss the point. These costs go to subsidize GA airports.


Not exclusively.

You're not trying to assert that there is no contribution from GA
toward AIP grants, are you?

What percentage of the AIP funds are used for GA airports as opposed
to airline hubs? You make it sound like the air carriers are
necessary to GA. That is ludicrous.


With regard to "reliever or satellite airports," what do you believe
they are designed to relieve? *Has it occurred to you, that they are
necessary because of air carrier operations?

Now there is an MX style argument.

Rather than implying that there is some flaw in my rhetoric, perhaps
you'll be good enough to concretely explain your specific disagreement
with it.

Would you like to pay the landing fee at LAX ?

I would prefer that airline hub airports were located in rural areas
instead of the center of the city, and were fed from municipal
airports. It's inevitable.

Prior to deregulation there was no landing fee at LAX, at least I was
never charged one.



That is poised to change. *Metropolitan/GA airports are about to
become a much more vital part of our nation's air travel
infrastructure, just ask Cirrus co-founder, COB, and CEO Alan
Klapmeier. *His company is the parent of air-taxi startup SATSair.*
They and DayJet are serving what amounts to a new air-travel market in
the SE. *A vital part of serving that market are metropolitan
airports. *The anticipated increased use of metropolitan airports
should provide additional revenue generation opportunities for airport
operators as well as local businesses in those cities.

Have you seen how dayJet is doing ?


The fact that DayJet has not found the additional funding it requires,
given the current state of the economy, is frustrating, but DayJet
just added additional airports to its service area:


(http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/B...197799-1.html),
DayJet on Tuesday said it will expand its network

(http://www.dayjet.com/News/PressRele...a_05202008.pdf)
of DayPorts, adding two more Florida cities, for a total of nine
sites. With the addition of Jacksonville and Sarasota, 62 percent
of Florida's population now lives within 35 miles of a DayPort
airport, the company said in a statement on Tuesday.

SATSair seems to be doing fine.


Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. *Have you any idea
of the cost to fund NextGen development, implementation, and
operation?
You are missing the point.

I believe it is you who is missing the point. The cost to develop,
implement and operate NextGen ATC will be several orders of magnitude
greater than the present system, that's the reason those with NextGen
products to sell are attempting to abolish Congressional oversight of
FAA. They know Congress will not approve such a giveaway.

As a GA pilot, I don't really need the present ATC system, let alone
NextGen ATC, so imagine how jamming the NextGen boondoggle down my
throat feels. If the Airlines need NextGen, the Airlines should fund
it. But NextGen is irrevocably flawed.

If it works as advertized NEXGEN is supposed to be safer and more efficent.

Even the FAA acknowledges the vulnerability dependence on satellite
communications introduces into the system:

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=56353
May 22 — Galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and protons may sound
like something out of Star Trek. But space weather could have a
major impact on the way the FAA moves airplanes. Often driven by
changing conditions on the sun, space weather is expected to have
an increasing impact on flight planning and operations on the
Earth, Air Traffic Organization Chief Operating Officer Hank
Krakowski said at a conference on the issue in
Washington, DC, on May 21.

Krakowski explained that weather in outer space can affect the
reliability of space-borne technological systems, such as
high-precision Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation. The FAA
is currently transforming the way it moves air traffic from a
ground-based radar system to a satellite-based navigation system,
using GPS, as part of the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, known as NextGen. ...

And I see no reason to believe that NextGen ATC is going to be any
better than the ADS-B implementation the FAA has suggested in their
NPRM that mandates GA aircraft be equipped with $17,000.00 ADS-B Out
equipment at owners' expense. That would provide none of the benefits
of ADS-B In such as weather or depiction of other participating
aircraft, and the cost would exceed the value of a significant segment
of the of GA aircraft. And in any event, the ADS-B NPRM completely
overlooks military operations. If that is also how FAA intends to
conduct its due diligence obligation to NextGen stakeholders, I am
completely opposed to it.

It is too bad that with all the other spending that is going on,
the FAA has to compete for the $$$ to get advances for aviation
in this country.
Frank

It's too bad that due to the $2.5 billion per week cost of the
needless Iraq war, that educational funding is being reduced, despite
the abysmal high school graduation rate in our nation. Compared to
that travesty, the importance of NextGen pales.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm
REVISED APRIL 2002
The report's main findings are the following:

* The national graduation rate for the class of 1998 was 71%.
For white students the rate was 78%, while it was 56% for
African-American students and 54% for Latino students.
* Georgia had the lowest overall graduation rate in the nation
with 54% of students graduating, followed by Nevada, Florida, and
Washington, D.C.
* Iowa had the highest overall graduation rate with 93%,
followed by North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska.
* Wisconsin had the lowest graduation rate among
African-American students with 40%, followed by Minnesota,
Georgia, and Tennessee. Georgia had the lowest graduation rate
among Latino students with 32%, followed by Alabama, Tennessee,
and North Carolina. Less than 50% of African-American students
graduated in seven states and less than 50% of Latino students
graduated in eight states for which data were available.



And the trend is not good:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html
High School Graduation Rates Plummet Below 50 Percent in Some U.S.
Cities

Tuesday, April 01, 2008
WASHINGTON — Seventeen of the nation's 50 largest cities had high
school graduation rates lower than 50 percent, with the lowest
graduation rates reported in Detroit, Indianapolis and Cleveland,
according to a report released Tuesday.

The report, issued by America's Promise Alliance, found that about
half of the students served by public school systems in the
nation's largest cities receive diplomas. Students in suburban and
rural public high schools were more likely to graduate than their
counterparts in urban public high schools, the researchers said.

Nationally, about 70 percent of U.S. students graduate on time
with a regular diploma and about 1.2 million students drop out
annually.

"When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school,
it's more than a problem, it's a catastrophe," said former
Secretary of State Colin Powell, founding chair of the alliance.