Avgas in France has reached $7.50/gal !

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:11:04 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

the good thing is that I drive a car needing about 6 liters per 100
kilometers (the other car is a diesel needing about 4 to 5 liters per
100
kilometers). So I do care driving a fuelefficient car, because it saves
me
money.

Somebody run the numbers. What is that in miles per gallon? Just
wanted to compare that to my F250 Diesel.

About 40MPG and 50MPG for the diesel.

btw my numbers reflect only my cars. this fuel consumption does not reflect
fuel efficient cars. (IIRC this is something like 3 liters per 100
kilometers)

Such a car would likely be "useful"

it is always useful to save gas (and money). what is the difference in
driving 100 miles within a city or "out in the west"?

out in the west where distances are
measured in three or even four digits and those are MILES not klicks.

even in the city and on short distance your consumption is more than
average.
it was always weired to see those huge pickups in the city, only the driver
and no passengers, the driver only has this car for ... eee .. no idea.
hopefuly for fun. no wonder that carpooling lanes can be used when the car
is occupied by at least _2_ persons.

But Martin is such a good little milch cow!! He'll do as ordered!

I don't get your point.

I am free to buy whatever car I can afford. But I'd be silly to buy more
than I would need.

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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 04:20:19 GMT, Mike Rapoport wrote:

So what is your (US) or our (Europe) advantage? High costs for labor and
energy, higher transportation costs, more restrictions and laws, lack of
people willing to work really hard, etc. etc ...

Lots of intellectual property, extensive infrastructure, stable political
system, lots of capital and educated people.

I am with you except for the educated people.

Every country has about the
same energy costs.

*hehe* not really. For example: Opel (a car brand, owned by GM) has plants
here in some European countries. They wanted to close one German facility.
One reason was that energy was cheaper in Finnland (IIRC; one of the
northern countries), labor was about the same.

The US and Europe are well positioned to compete in many
industries.

not for very much longer. Maybe 1, maximum 2 generations.
maybe there are few industries left for us.

Mike
MU-2

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

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

In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays for
all the roads

are you claiming that, in the USA, the only source of funds to pay for roads is
the tax on gas? In MA we have this excise tax which I thought paid for part
of the road infrastructure.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"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

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

No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays for
all the roads and the taxes on aviation do not come close to paying for
airports.

Maybe where you come from; in most states fuel taxes go into the general
fund (often in contravention of several state and federal laws).

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays
for
all the roads

are you claiming that, in the USA, the only source of funds to pay for
roads is
the tax on gas? In MA we have this excise tax which I thought paid for
part
of the road infrastructure.

In many states the fuel taxes and property taxes on vehicles all goes into
the General Fund. Some of it comes back into the highway fund, but often,
not even half.

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

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

It isn't important whether anybody likes it or not, what is important
is
realize that it is inevitable and change what and how we do things so
we
do
not compete where we are at a major disadvantage.

So what is your (US) or our (Europe) advantage? High costs for labor and
energy, higher transportation costs, more restrictions and laws, lack of
people willing to work really hard, etc. etc ...

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

Lots of intellectual property, extensive infrastructure, stable political
system, lots of capital and educated people. Every country has about the
same energy costs. The US and Europe are well positioned to compete in
many
industries.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/ (EU vs. USA) by a think tank in Stockholm,
Sweden Read particularly the summary at the bottom and some of he charts
comparing the various EU countries against the US. For example, if the
single EU countries were compared along side the US states, they would
mostly be in the bottom six or so (down with Alabama or West Virginia). The
big factors are regulation and taxes. In essence, the EU is, productivity
wise, where the US was in 1978 and falling behind.


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

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

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news
Given that only a small percentage of Chineese are participating in
their
"new" economy, it will be a long time before this happens. Remember
that
Japan's economy stalled after they became (and remain) the richest
developed
nation on a per capita basis.


Even after their economy puked, what, 2/3rds of it's value?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO


How are you arriving at that?

What was the NIKKEI at it's peak and bottom? It's now at 11,045 and wasn't
it at around 40,000 at it's peak in 1990?

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Newps" wrote

Ahem...120,000 is not now and never will be a "metro area".

Think again. In Iowa, and other Midwest and plains states, that is a
downright huge metro area. Such as are the wide open spaces in the US.
--
The feds consider a "Metro Area" to be 1 million population or more and have
since the 60's I think.