Dumb, off topic and political

As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

In the United States, this would be ON TOP OF the taxes we already pay
on avgas. Well, where is THAT money going? And where will THIS money
go when, on top of the annual assessment, they decide that one should
pull out the MasterCard for a weather briefing?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
news
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

In the United States, this would be ON TOP OF the taxes we already pay on
avgas. Well, where is THAT money going? And where will THIS money go
when, on top of the annual assessment, they decide that one should pull
out the MasterCard for a weather briefing?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.

Mike
MU-21

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

The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.


I'm all for eliminating FSS to save money.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
news
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

In the United States, this would be ON TOP OF the taxes we already pay on
avgas. Well, where is THAT money going? And where will THIS money go
when, on top of the annual assessment, they decide that one should pull
out the MasterCard for a weather briefing?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.


The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.

Mike
MU-21



Nonsense. That is lumping us together with airlines and buiness craft.

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.


Nonsense. That is lumping us together with airlines and buiness craft.


Who are "us"? Are business aircraft not GA? How much avgas is sold to
non-GA aircraft?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.


Nonsense. That is lumping us together with airlines and buiness craft.



Who are "us"? Are business aircraft not GA? How much avgas is sold to
non-GA aircraft?



No, guys flying Cessna jets and turbine powered airplanes are not us. AOPA
believes that keeping these two groups together, light airplanes and heavy
business operators is the way to keep GA togther. But 172s and CJs don't share
ANY concerns with each other. I have argued about this with the bisjet types,
they want BIGGER BETTER control towers, and more involvement for the FAA
in the traffic system, not less. We, the 172 to Bonanza drivers do NOT share
interest with the bizjet crowd.

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

No, guys flying Cessna jets and turbine powered airplanes are not us. AOPA
believes that keeping these two groups together, light airplanes and heavy
business operators is the way to keep GA togther. But 172s and CJs don't
share
ANY concerns with each other. I have argued about this with the bisjet
types,
they want BIGGER BETTER control towers, and more involvement for the FAA
in the traffic system, not less. We, the 172 to Bonanza drivers do NOT
share
interest with the bizjet crowd.


So presumably the avgas crowd is "us" then?

I don't understand your response to Mike Rapoport's message. He said; "the
tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr." You responded; "Nonsense. That is lumping us
together with airlines and buiness craft." It appears to be just the
opposite.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

No, guys flying Cessna jets and turbine powered airplanes are not us. AOPA
believes that keeping these two groups together, light airplanes and heavy
business operators is the way to keep GA togther. But 172s and CJs don't
share
ANY concerns with each other. I have argued about this with the bisjet
types,
they want BIGGER BETTER control towers, and more involvement for the FAA
in the traffic system, not less. We, the 172 to Bonanza drivers do NOT
share
interest with the bizjet crowd.



So presumably the avgas crowd is "us" then?

I don't understand your response to Mike Rapoport's message. He said; "the
tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr." You responded; "Nonsense. That is lumping us
together with airlines and buiness craft." It appears to be just the
opposite.



Are you saying that the cost above for flight services separates out airlines?

I don't think it does.

Scott Moore wrote:


Who are "us"? Are business aircraft not GA? How much avgas is sold to
non-GA aircraft?



No, guys flying Cessna jets and turbine powered airplanes are not us. AOPA
believes that keeping these two groups together, light airplanes and heavy
business operators is the way to keep GA togther. But 172s and CJs don't share
ANY concerns with each other. I have argued about this with the bisjet types,
they want BIGGER BETTER control towers, and more involvement for the FAA
in the traffic system, not less. We, the 172 to Bonanza drivers do NOT share
interest with the bizjet crowd.

You are correct. AOPA = light aircraft G/A

NBAA = turbine business operations

NBAA understands the distinction far better than does the FAA. The FAA actually
does understand it but it (the FAA senior management) is totally dominated by the
air carriers who strongly resist any distinction between a Cessna 182 and a Cessna
Citation X.

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
news
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

In the United States, this would be ON TOP OF the taxes we already pay on
avgas. Well, where is THAT money going? And where will THIS money go
when, on top of the annual assessment, they decide that one should pull
out the MasterCard for a weather briefing?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.


The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.

Mike
MU-21



Nonsense. That is lumping us together with airlines and buiness craft.


Airlines and most turbine business aviation don't use FSS. FSS serves only
GA.

Mike
MU-2