![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message hlink.net... "Dude" wrote in message news ![]() Is the "fair share" argument what this is really about? The majors think they are paying too much because their planes use more fuel? Well, the majors are not a business, they're a political interest group. I used to think that Southwest was able to profit by cherrypicking, but now that they're the #2 carrier it's pretty hard to deny that the majors are simply businesses with a failed model. For airline travel to evolve we need to let Darwin play his cards and thin the herd. Then there's the fact that the airlines write off fuel costs. And it's not as though the only cost of an airliner is ATC. Those major metropolitan airports cost a pretty penny to run, and then there's that little thing called the TSA. This unwillingness to accept simple math is not unique to pilots, medicare recipients don't achknowlege it either. As a point of interest, almost everyone in our society (close to 90%) is paying less that thier equal share of the cost of government. Yes, which makes the left's chant that the rich "aren't paying their fair share" deliciously ironic. There has never been a sustained constituency for smaller government. You can always rile up an angry mob to prevent cutting program A and another mob for program B, but only in rare moments of crisis will people rally around a general tightening, as with Thatcher or Reagan. Even in those cases, I would argue it was really more of a moral issue than accounting, as with the welfare debate. Aid to Families with Dependent Children cost in the neighborhood of 20-30bn a year, not a major item in the federal budget. People wanted it cut not because it cost too much, but because it corrupted people and in turn society. Of course, no one is really talking now about how taxing the pants off young people trying to buy their first car, house, have a kid to buy drugs for elderly people who are as a group much sounder financially. They paid 1980s taxes on 1980s income but will get 2010 benefits that cost 2010 money. But hey, it's only fair, right? -cwk. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Planes at Hanscom face turbulence caused by higher fees | Bill | Piloting | 3 | February 12th 05 04:46 PM |
NAA Fees to the US Team | Doug Jacobs | Soaring | 2 | October 29th 04 01:09 AM |
LXE installation XP, strict user permissions. | Hannes | Soaring | 0 | March 21st 04 11:15 PM |
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 9 | January 23rd 04 12:23 PM |
Angel Flight pilots: Ever have an FBO refuse to wave landing fees? | Peter R. | Piloting | 11 | August 2nd 03 01:20 AM |