GA User fees

by Jose teacherjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 21, 2005 at 07:38 PM


Who is benefitting? Not just the flyers. The airport you describe is
probably close to a metropolitan area, which has an even larger airport
nearby, which does have commercial service. That larger airport may
even be more convenient for many GA operations, but the airlines do not
want us mixing up in there. We get in their way. So, instead of having
us land on their concrete (and putting hardly any wear and tear on it at
all), they would prefer we land, well, "elsewhere" and just stay out of
their hair. This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The primary beneficary
is the airlines, who can now schedule more flights and have fewer delays
(just imagine what American Airlines would think of a 152 doing pattern
work at JFK).

So, who benefits from this reliever airport? The airlines. And as the
airport gets bigger (think Westchester), the airlines start moving in
there too, demanding concrete and ether that spam cans usually can do
without, but would have to pay for under your plan.

Jose

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

Seems like, from your new argument about GA reliever airports providing
indirect benefit to commercial airports, you agree that GA airports are
subsidized.

I obviously disagree with this most recent argument. But, next week, I
will enjoy the tax subsidies when we are soaring above CT in the 172.

Happy Holidays, Skylune out.

The AV gas taxes more than cover the incremental cost that GA adds to the
equation. It does not cover the excessive amounts that the FAA wastes.


"Skylune" wrote in message

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

I believe you are right on this point. But let's look at the numbers.

The avgas tax is $0.193/gallon. If my plane burns 10 gph I am paying a tax
of $1.93/hour. If I fly 50 hours per year I pay $96.50 per year to use the
system. If I stop flying altogether is the FAA going to be able to reduce
it's expenses $96.50/year? If I double the amount I fly is the FAA going to
have to increase their annual budget $96.50 to cover the cost?



"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:CfAqf.856$dh2.160@trndny08...
The AV gas taxes more than cover the incremental cost that GA adds to the
equation. It does not cover the excessive amounts that the FAA wastes.


"Skylune" wrote in message

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA
nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:33:48 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

I believe you are right on this point. But let's look at the numbers.

The avgas tax is $0.193/gallon. If my plane burns 10 gph I am paying a tax
of $1.93/hour. If I fly 50 hours per year I pay $96.50 per year to use the
system. If I stop flying altogether is the FAA going to be able to reduce
it's expenses $96.50/year? If I double the amount I fly is the FAA going to
have to increase their annual budget $96.50 to cover the cost?

If there's a recession and everyone is forced to cut back on flying or
a national emergency forces shutting down GA flying, how would FAA
cope with the loss of revenue? Would they lay off controllers, as
might be done with a private enterrprise?

RK Henry

In article CfAqf.856$dh2.160@trndny08,
"Steve Foley" wrote:

The AV gas taxes more than cover the incremental cost that GA adds to the
equation. It does not cover the excessive amounts that the FAA wastes.


"Skylune" wrote in message

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

The whole issue is irrelevant, as "Skyloon" is pushing *ONLY* GA user
fees. He doesn't object to subsidies for bike lanes, backpackers,
skiiers, boaters and a myriad of other activities.

He is, therefore, nothing but a hypocritical troll, and should be
treated as such.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Orville writes:

...He doesn't object to subsidies for bike lanes, backpackers,
skiiers, boaters and a myriad of other activities..

Of course I don't object to things which exist only in your feculent
imagination. Subsidies for skiers: LOL.

..He doesn't object to subsidies for bike lanes, backpackers,
skiiers, boaters and a myriad of other activities..

Of course I don't object to things which exist only in your feculent
imagination.

Bike lanes are most assuredly subsidized. There are no tolls on bicycle
lanes, there are no "user fees" for bikes, and people can ride on them
free even if they were specially constructed for bicycles. The concrete
doesn't come for nothing - guess who is paying.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by Jose Dec 22, 2005 at 07:47 PM


Bike lanes are most assuredly subsidized. There are no tolls on bicycle
lanes, there are no "user fees" for bikes, and people can ride on them
free even if they were specially constructed for bicycles. The concrete
doesn't come for nothing - guess who is paying

Jose: Here's the scoop on subsidies. True that the recently passed
TEA-21 had some capital funding for bike lanes and other forms of pork.

If you want to check out the various forms of federal tax subsidies by
mode of transportation, this link has some of the raw data. Note that
highways are actually NEGATIVELY subsidized (i.e. federal gasoline taxes
provide more revenues than federal highway funding).

Heaviest subsidies are for aviation as well as public transportation
systems and AMTRAK.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...portation.html

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by Jose Dec 22, 2005 at 07:47 PM


Bike lanes are most assuredly subsidized. There are no tolls on bicycle
lanes, there are no "user fees" for bikes, and people can ride on them
free even if they were specially constructed for bicycles. The concrete
doesn't come for nothing - guess who is paying

Jose: Here's the scoop on subsidies. True that the recently passed
TEA-21 had some capital funding for bike lanes and other forms of pork.

If you want to check out the various forms of federal tax subsidies by
mode of transportation, this link has some of the raw data. Note that
highways are actually NEGATIVELY subsidized (i.e. federal gasoline taxes
provide more revenues than federal highway funding).

Heaviest subsidies are for aviation as well as public transportation
systems and AMTRAK.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...portation.html







Yeah Loon, you've posted that before and the question remains how the hell
do they even know how many pax miles GA has flown? If they don't know that
how can they possibly come up with a legitimate $/mile figure?

"Skylune" wrote:

Heaviest subsidies are for aviation as well as public transportation
systems and AMTRAK.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...portation.html


That site is not maintained by an unbiased organization. The DOT is
trying to get more funding for a wasteful FAA, from a Congress who
insists Amtrak is necessary. Rather odd also for a gov't agency to
criticize its own programs. You're not even presenting DOT's data
fairly, as that site shows per passenger mile funding for rail and
transit is huge; for all of aviation a peanut. Unfavorable per/mile
comparisons for GA and air carrier is phony too, as GA flys shorter
hops. NY to LA in even a T210 is an excellent adventure. By any chance,
is your name "Ned?" Well, we don't get French benefits.

Fred F.