Unjustified GA User Fee

FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
users. I don't think that's justified. Read the following paragraphs
regarding to recent ConAir CRJ crash quoted from ABC News:

--------------------
Although Blue Grass Airport's main runway is 7,000 feet, for some
reason the plane departed Sunday from the 3,500-foot general aviation
runway. The twin-engine CRJ-100 would have needed 5,000 feet to fully
get off the ground, aviation experts said.

There also were clues for the pilot: Signs marking the right way. Less
lighting. And severely cracked concrete not the type of surface
typically found on runways for commercial routes.

.... the main runway, which had been repaved last week.

-------------------- from
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2364735

GA airplanes use "severely cracked and less lid" runways comparing to
the commercial jets use the brand new runway that just paved last week.
And now FAA want GA to pay additional fee to match the commercial
users? No way.

"jbskies" wrote in message
ups.com...
FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
users. I don't think that's justified. Read the following paragraphs
regarding to recent ConAir CRJ crash quoted from ABC News:

--------------------
Although Blue Grass Airport's main runway is 7,000 feet, for some
reason the plane departed Sunday from the 3,500-foot general aviation
runway. The twin-engine CRJ-100 would have needed 5,000 feet to fully
get off the ground, aviation experts said.

There also were clues for the pilot: Signs marking the right way. Less
lighting. And severely cracked concrete not the type of surface
typically found on runways for commercial routes.

... the main runway, which had been repaved last week.

-------------------- from
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2364735

GA airplanes use "severely cracked and less lid" runways comparing to
the commercial jets use the brand new runway that just paved last week.
And now FAA want GA to pay additional fee to match the commercial
users? No way.


I agree 100%.

The airlines claim is costs as much for ATC to handle my Cherokee as it does
for them to handle a 747.

Why is ATC there to begin with? Class B around Boston (a big, commercial/air
carrier airport). Class C around Bradley, Manchester and Providence (all
big, commercial/air carrier airports). It there were no airlines, we
wouldn't need ATC in New England.

Keene, NH has an ILS, so, obviously, ATC is not NEEDED when you've got an
ILS.

Take a look at the "Big Dig" in Boston. What business benefits from easy
access to a big, commercial/air carrier airport?

Let's see what the FAA would spend if they stopped spending on airports. How
much of this spending benefits GA?

Looking at the spending by the FAA at my local airport (Worcester, MA -
KORH):

New Passenger Terminal
New Control Tower (they put the terminal between the old tower and the
approach end of the runway)
Resurface the crosswind (5000') runway

None of these expenses benefited GA in any way, shape or form.

I believe the runway is pavement is eight feet thick. I don't need eight
feet thick. I've landed on 0 feet thick (grass).

I can't even approach the new terminal. There's a yellow line painted around
it that I cannot cross.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:13:18 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

[snip]

I agree 100%.

The airlines claim is costs as much for ATC to handle my Cherokee as it does
for them to handle a 747.

Why is ATC there to begin with? Class B around Boston (a big, commercial/air
carrier airport). Class C around Bradley, Manchester and Providence (all
big, commercial/air carrier airports). It there were no airlines, we
wouldn't need ATC in New England.

Hey! Let's get one thing straight here! Politics and big business
doesn't need logical consideration! With the likes of you, how do you
expect pork barrel projects and big business to continue raping the
American people? After all, it is well established, someone MUST rape the
American people. It is, after all, the American thing to do. You are
American, right?

I think it's clear you need to take your thoughtful comments and keep them
to your self. Politics simply has no place for insight like yours!


Greg

All grants for GA airports are "pork." Users should bear 100% of the
capital and operating costs of the airports. (Same for dual use and
commercial airports...)

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

All grants for GA airports are "pork." Users should bear 100% of the
capital and operating costs of the airports.


They are. The grants come from taxes on users.

How do you spell "uninformed?" You are 100% wrong.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Skylune" wrote in message
alkaboutaviation.com...

All grants for GA airports are "pork." Users should bear 100% of the
capital and operating costs of the airports.


They are. The grants come from taxes on users.

19.4 cents federal tax per gallon of 100LL Skylune.

Ron Lee

All grants for GA airports are "pork."

If one looks up on faa.gov at who gets AIP funds, air carrier
fields gets the bulk. Then look at what GA fields get other than
mickey mouse grants, often safety items. The bigger GA fields
are relievers, to help keep corporate aviation out of big
airports, to prevent airline delays. So it's airlines and the
passengers who benefit too. In fact, in our town, the Port
Authority owns the big field and one reliever. They further
extract the reliever's operating deficit, like $1.5 million bucks
annually, out of the pockets of the air carriers, to keep the
bizjets out of their hair and not soak the city taxpayers to
subsidize bizjets.

Fred F.

Steve Foley wrote:

"jbskies" wrote in message
ups.com...
FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
users. I don't think that's justified. Read the following paragraphs
regarding to recent ConAir CRJ crash quoted from ABC News:

--------------------
Although Blue Grass Airport's main runway is 7,000 feet, for some
reason the plane departed Sunday from the 3,500-foot general aviation
runway. The twin-engine CRJ-100 would have needed 5,000 feet to fully
get off the ground, aviation experts said.

There also were clues for the pilot: Signs marking the right way. Less
lighting. And severely cracked concrete not the type of surface
typically found on runways for commercial routes.

... the main runway, which had been repaved last week.

-------------------- from
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2364735

GA airplanes use "severely cracked and less lid" runways comparing to
the commercial jets use the brand new runway that just paved last week.
And now FAA want GA to pay additional fee to match the commercial
users? No way.


I agree 100%.

The airlines claim is costs as much for ATC to handle my Cherokee as it does
for them to handle a 747.

Why is ATC there to begin with? Class B around Boston (a big, commercial/air
carrier airport). Class C around Bradley, Manchester and Providence (all
big, commercial/air carrier airports). It there were no airlines, we
wouldn't need ATC in New England.

Huh? If there were no airlines, Hanscom wouldn't need a tower? I think you
might be smoking funny stuff. Or Lawrence, Quonsett, Barnes, Portsmouth,
Westover, Norwood, Hartford, Bridgeport, Nashua, etc. You're saying that those
New England airports need towers because they of airlines???




Keene, NH has an ILS, so, obviously, ATC is not NEEDED when you've got an
ILS.

Lots of airports have ILS and no tower. So? Nobody said one created the need
for another.



Take a look at the "Big Dig" in Boston. What business benefits from easy
access to a big, commercial/air carrier airport?


Let's see what the FAA would spend if they stopped spending on airports. How
much of this spending benefits GA?

How much of FAA Revenues come from GA? I believe the vast majority of revenues
come from the airline fees and ticket taxes/waybill taxes and GA revenue (the
excise tax) represents a pittance of the total revenue.




Looking at the spending by the FAA at my local airport (Worcester, MA -
KORH):



New Passenger Terminal
New Control Tower (they put the terminal between the old tower and the
approach end of the runway)
Resurface the crosswind (5000') runway

None of these expenses benefited GA in any way, shape or form.

Who did they benefit? I believe the latest 121 carrier to try Worcester is
pulling out real soon.



I believe the runway is pavement is eight feet thick. I don't need eight
feet thick. I've landed on 0 feet thick (grass).

I can't even approach the new terminal. There's a yellow line painted around
it that I cannot cross.

Don't feel bad. Nobody else is approaching it either, by car, foot, etc.

"Owen" wrote

How much of FAA Revenues come from GA? I believe the vast majority of
revenues
come from the airline fees and ticket taxes/waybill taxes and GA revenue
(the
excise tax) represents a pittance of the total revenue.

What tears up a runway more, 1,000 landings by a typical single engine AC,
or 1 landing by a B-737? (or other large airliner)

What uses more ATC services more, a typical single engine flight, or a
airline flight.

I should hope commercial airlines pay the lion's share of the bills.
--
Jim in NC