GA paying fair (fare?) share

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message
...

I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft
runways either but we use them.


Of course we use them; they're there. If GA didn't exist those 10,000'
runways would still be needed to serve the airlines. If the airlines didn't
exist those 10,000' runways wouldn't exist.

Exactly my point.

Another way to look at the situation would be to see what happened if you
took the government out of it altogether.

You and I would fly around, mostly VFR, or maybe we would have to pay to use
an IFR service from a private company that was likely started to service the
airlines. Or, we could take the risk and fly IFR all on our own.

The Airlines would HAVE to have this service. We could use it or not. Then
they would have to fly around US. They would likely tell the service to
service us for free JUST TO GET US OUT OF THEIR WAY! Airports would be
privately owned, and the really big long runways would cost a lot to use, or
maybe they would cost nothing if you bought fuel there. At any rate, if
they tried to charge some guy in his Mooney a $100 landing fee, he would
take his business elsewhere. Which would be fine. Or, the airlines could
have their own airports, which would be fine (except they would have to be
in the middle of nowhere because only a government can build an airport near
a city full of NIMBY's).

Only when the government is involved does the whole idea of fair share come
up (and get perverted).

Their argument is based on the idea that they are an equal player in the
system, but that is a false premise. The system is designed mostly for
THEIR safe use, not ours.

If you start with a FAIR and EQUAL system, then publicly owned Class B
airports could not turn me away because I was not a scheduled airliner and
they were too busy. Nope, if it were fair and equal, it would be first come
first serve. They ask us and need us to use ATC for their purposes, and now
they want us to pay for the privilege.

In otherwords, they want us out of THEIR sky.




"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message
...

I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft
runways either but we use them.


Of course we use them; they're there. If GA didn't exist those 10,000'
runways would still be needed to serve the airlines. If the airlines
didn't
exist those 10,000' runways wouldn't exist.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Exactly my point.

Another way to look at the situation would be to see what happened if you
took the government out of it altogether.

You and I would fly around, mostly VFR, or maybe we would have to pay to
use
an IFR service from a private company that was likely started to service
the
airlines. Or, we could take the risk and fly IFR all on our own.

The Airlines would HAVE to have this service. We could use it or not.
Then
they would have to fly around US. They would likely tell the service to
service us for free JUST TO GET US OUT OF THEIR WAY! Airports would be
privately owned, and the really big long runways would cost a lot to use,
or
maybe they would cost nothing if you bought fuel there. At any rate, if
they tried to charge some guy in his Mooney a $100 landing fee, he would
take his business elsewhere. Which would be fine. Or, the airlines could
have their own airports, which would be fine (except they would have to be
in the middle of nowhere because only a government can build an airport
near
a city full of NIMBY's).

You've just described aviation in Britain. Apart from three things. 1) They
keep
the airliners in controlled airspace to keep us out of each other's way and
2) you only pay the IFR fees if you're over 2000kg IIRC (Eurocontrol) and
receiving a service. You can fly IFR without it, as you described above.
3) The airports are privately owned, but not by the airlines...not directly
anyway.

At least there's (2) at the moment. When Mode S transponders are made
compulsory in 2008 so they know who everyone is in the air, they can then
charge everyone....or could if they wanted to.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/activitie...ation-charges/

Paul