F. Baum wrote:

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 .


The operators who use the system DO help fund it.



Are you kidding ? Every airport in the LA basin, including all but one
of the privately owned airports has benefited from federal funding. If
ATC were to vanish, how would anyone fly IFR without major delays ?


They'd have to trust the "big sky, little airplane" theory, just as they did
prior to ATC. Presumanly the major delays you refer to would be waiting for
good weather, which would not be flying IFR. That wouldn't eliminate delays
at major hubs, however. If an airport has a maximum capacity of X
operations per hour under ideal conditions and more than X hourly
operations are scheduled delays are unavoidable.



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


Consider the fact that modernizing NAS will not reduce airline delays.



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


Virtually all of GA is subsidized? What evidence do you have to support
that assertion?



Here again, you are supporting my side. This is something that Boyer
chooses to ignore. I dont think RA wants to mess with the guy who is
flying his Cub out of a rural airport under VFR. 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.


What evidence do you have to support that assertion?



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. Also, I wouldnt put much
stock in Useless Today.


Well, how much of the system HAS been put in place to suport GA?



"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.


What are the respective fuel tax rates?



You are missing the point. If it works as advertized NEXGEN is
supposed to be safer and more efficent. 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.


If it works as advertized NEXGEN will be safer and more efficient but it
will do nothing to reduce airline delays.