Avgas in France has reached $7.50/gal !

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 03:53:50 GMT, Mike Rapoport wrote:

I recall a statistic that one max weight semi truck caused as much damage as
2300cars over the same road. This implies that trucking is indeed
subsidized. The railroads have to maintain their own tracks. The system
doesn't change because there are more truckers than railroads.

this is one of the main reasons we have tolls for trucks on a per mile
basis. for one to pay for the damage; we also want them to move their cargo
on trains.

#m
--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Does the tax on Jet-A and other fees support the airlines usages?


The passenger and fuel taxes are all mixed together. I used avgas tax and
FSS because almost all the FSS users are flying piston engine airplanes.
There really aren't any other fees that don't go to the airport owner.

Has anyone ever done a complete breakout of costs vs. revenue of the air
transport system at all levels?

If you consider that most of the system exists for the airlines, with GA
as
an incremental user then the airlines are getting a pretty good deal.

Considering the spartan facilities GA uses, compared to the regal
infrastructure the airlines require, GA is dirt cheap.

If
you divide the cost among all users by the number of flights then GA is
getting a good deal. People try to parse the facts to support their
position. Another way to look at it is that GA pilots and companies with
business aircraft pay income taxes and most airlines do not.

And GA didn't get $$$BILLIONS in handout in the wake of 9/11.

The airlines
would counter that they pay wages and their employees pay taxes. It goes
on
forever.

Cyclically.

One thing is clear though; piston GA is not paying its way through
fuel taxes as many believe. If the airplane burns 10GPH and flys
100hrs/yr
the fuel tax is only about $200/yr which doesn't cover much of anything.

Interestingly, I recall a few articles a few years ago the over-the-road
trucks pay roughly half of taxes and fees for the interstate and state
highways, but they cause more than 3/4ths of wear-and-tear and damage.

I recall a statistic that one max weight semi truck caused as much damage
as
2300cars over the same road. This implies that trucking is indeed
subsidized.

Trucks like to have stickers on their cab/trailers that "I paid $xxx in
taxes last year", but the amounts certain;y are not coincident with the
damage they cause. Never mind that many are way OVER max.

Hell, I paid $900 in Colorado property tax on my bird last year and it
certainly didn't go into the CAF.

The railroads have to maintain their own tracks. The system
doesn't change because there are more truckers than railroads.

When someone else foots the bill, new and more efficient processes and
technologies never seem to get implemented as quickly as when we pay our
own
way (like good, mature adults).

Yes I would support an IFR system like in the UK. You fly without radar
separation below certain altitudes and you don't have to talk to ATC.
AFAIK
there has never been a collision.

"Midair collisions are extremely rare. In 1999, for instance, only 18 midair
collisions occurred, of which 9 involved fatalities. A fatal midair
collision, therefore, occurred only once in every 3 million flying hours
(based on an estimated 27 million hours flown in 1999)." -- AOPA GA Fact
Sheet

Only two of the 18 (AIUI) were under ATC control. ??


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article .net, Mike Rapoport wrote:
I recall a statistic that one max weight semi truck caused as much damage as
2300cars over the same road.

IIRC, the road damage goes up at the fourth power of axle weight.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Yes I would support an IFR system like in the UK. You fly without radar
separation below certain altitudes and you don't have to talk to ATC.
AFAIK
there has never been a collision.

Just a guide.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/SRG_GA_LARS_in_SEE.pdf

There's an interesting map of air-proxes and mid-air collisions. It
surprised me that there were five mid-air collisions from 1991 to 2001 in
the south east of England. Three of them involve gliders, with one being
plane with glider. The other two happened while flying formation/formation
aeros though they were both relatively minor (no one was hurt).

Paul

"Chris" wrote in message
...


Those of us who do have to pay $7.80 are the ones entitled to gripe about
it. However I am also aware of where my tax £'s go and frankly I do not
worry too much about it. Why, apart from money wasted on some dunderheaded
war, most gets put to good use.

****ing it down a toilet is a good use? Gee, you're a good little munchen!

My parents get good medical treatment and they do not have to pay a cent
for
it, I put a son through Oxford University for $30,000 (mostly for beer I
think) and many other things.

Wow!!, glorified parasitism!!


I consider flying a hobby, a luxury and indulgence. I do not fly to
support
my job, British Airways is always the best for that.

What I don't do is take flying for granted. Here its a privilege not a
right
but I have to accept that the majority of the country don't give a damn
about it and would not care a jot if it was stopped.


So while I can I will pay my $7.80 a gallon and my eurocontrol charges and
enjoy it and every so often slip over to the US and enjoy flying for $3 a
gallon and be subsidised by your tax $$s. That will taste sweet, knowing
that you are subsidising my flying.

See previous comment.