Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers

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 .

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

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.


* *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 ? Are you going MX on me ?

* * 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. 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.

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

* * "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.

* * 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.

* * 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.

* * "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.

* * "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.

* * 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.

* * "Mr. Anderson's attack on general aviation is unfair, unwarranted,
* * and, for the most part, untrue," said Boyer. "And by publishing
* * his attack in so public a forum, he has raised what should have
* * remained a regional skirmish into a nationwide battle. ...

Bla Bla Bla. The aviation trust fund is used nationwide. Biz Av
operates nationwide. What region is Boyer refering to ?



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. 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?


The air carrier costs you mention seem equitable to me.

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


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. Would you like to pay the landing
fee at LAX ?


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 ?


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. 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.
Frank