User Fees are coming closer to being very real

I think that pilots and the AOPA are right to fight against user fees, because
nothing should be allowed to happen without a fight, however in truth if
limited user fees do become a reality it will not signal the end of GA in the
US. In all likliehood, the costs will be modest, compared with the increases
that fuel costs and insurance costs have in store for us. Don't give in without
a fight - but don't overdramatize either.

Wow -- that's an incredible understatement of the problem.

Airports -- and the national air space -- are funded by a variety of
things, but the lion's share comes from fuel taxes. It is a simple
and relatively efficient way of collecting revenue, not unlike the 12%
sales/hotel/motel tax we must collect from our guests here in Iowa.

Adding another layer of bureacracy to collect new "user's fees" (AKA:
Taxes) amounts to just another insane power grab by the governmental
elite. Once created, this cadre of money-sucking, under-worked gubmint
employees will NEVER go away, and the overhead to maintain this
structure will NEVER be "modest" -- even if the tax starts out
tolerably small.

The equivalent would be if the State of Iowa were to set up a toll gate
out front of the hotel to collect $5 from every guest -- AND continued
to collect the sales/hotel/motel tax. Better to simply raise the
sales/hotel/motel tax, no?

Unless you're suggesting that the current fuel taxes would/should be
eliminated under the "User's Fee" plan? I wouldn't oppose that,
philosophically, although such a tax collection system would be
incredibly less efficient than the current one.

I think the "big fight" that the AOPA needs to be involved in is airport
closures. That's the big threat.

Agreed -- but the airports won't be threatened with closure if GA is
expanding and healthy. User's fees can only hurt GA, which will result
in airports closing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

but the airports won't be threatened with closure if GA is
expanding and healthy.

Sure they will. The economic forces are the same - even a healthy GA
population at a small airport that is in a developmentally desirable
area will not make enough money to fend this off. Granted, healthy GA
contributes economically many other ways, but those ways are mostly
hidden and indirect, making airports still an easy target.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
but the airports won't be threatened with closure if GA is
expanding and healthy.

Sure they will. The economic forces are the same - even a healthy GA
population at a small airport that is in a developmentally desirable
area will not make enough money to fend this off. Granted, healthy GA
contributes economically many other ways, but those ways are mostly
hidden and indirect, making airports still an easy target.

True, but we overlook the fact that a redeveloped airport site will still
generate indirect income. More than likely, a well developed airport site
will generate more indirect/hidden income in one week than what the airport
does in one year, including both direct and indirect income from the
airport. Arguing economics as a justification for a GA airport is usually a
losing argument once the facts are clear.

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:19:53 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote in t::

Arguing economics as a justification for a GA airport is usually a
losing argument once the facts are clear.

So, in your opinion, what is a winning argument for justifying the
continued existence of the local municipal airport in the face of its
poor revenue generating potential compared to a new housing
development/mall?

The way I see it, eventually, the international airports will be
located in the outskirts causing the municipal airports to become
gateways to air travel. Unfortunately, if the airport real estate is
abandoned to development, in the future that community will lack local
access and will be unlikely to find a new local airport venue given
the dearth of open space.

So it's a matter of shortsighted greed vs long range planning for
local transportation infrastructure.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:19:53 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote in t::

Arguing economics as a justification for a GA airport is usually
a losing argument once the facts are clear.

So, in your opinion, what is a winning argument for justifying the
continued existence of the local municipal airport in the face of
its poor revenue generating potential compared to a new housing
development/mall?


You hit the nail on the head. I have racked my brain and I cannot come up
with a winning argument that can stand on its own for justifying an airport.
Sure a GA airport has some benefits for society and some individuals, but
when examined these benefits are on an extremely small micro scale versus
the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site. If there was a
winning argument then I doubt if we would be constantly having these
airport/redevelopment situations. At least there does not appear to be a
one-size-fits-all argument. I get the feeling that we are only postponing
the inevitable when we fight back a closure. Of course that doesn't mean
give up, but it does seem to get harder and harder.

The way I see it, eventually, the international airports will be
located in the outskirts causing the municipal airports to become
gateways to air travel. Unfortunately, if the airport real estate
is abandoned to development, in the future that community will lack
local access and will be unlikely to find a new local airport venue
given the dearth of open space.

If the big airports are moved away the little GA only airports will not be
the gateway to the bigger airports. A high-speed dedicated rail line to the
airport makes more sense in that regard.


So it's a matter of shortsighted greed vs long range planning for
local transportation infrastructure.

when examined these benefits are on an extremely small micro scale versus
the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site.

What are the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site? More
traffic, more industry, more drain on the water system, more sewage,
another mall... pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
says...


Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.


Anecdote:
I actually know of a case in Europe where, because of its unique eco-system,
close to a city, but still quite wild, a medium-sized municipal airport has
become a recognized " endangered habitat " for some species of birds. It's
endangered of course because lawyers living nearby want to close it down, and
developers have their eyes on the open land. The city has grown out towards
the airport, to where the once forsaken territory now has immense value. The
environmentalists who prepared the bird report are stuck between a
philosophical rock and hard place - being dyed-in-the-wool
environmentalists, they cannot actually favor the continued existence of the
airport - Heaven forbid - but they admit it is the unique blend of open
space, grassland and even the method of upkeep of the airport that provides
the habitat for the birds. They even say if the airport were to be
eliminated, certain species could be in danger of extinction. Their proposal?
Well since they cannot actually come out and oppose closing the airport, they
suggest "in the event of an airport closure" the land should be maintained as
it is, with full maintenance staff at cost to the community, in order to
preserve the wild bird habitat. Now there's a progressive proposal for ya!
Eliminate the revenue portions of the operation, which allow it to be
self-sufficient and even a substantial economic motor for the community, but
maintain the land upkeep at cost to the residents! So far, I think it is only
an enlightened few who see the common sense in this proposal.

GF

In article ,
Jose wrote:

but the airports won't be threatened with closure if GA is
expanding and healthy.

Sure they will. The economic forces are the same - even a healthy GA
population at a small airport that is in a developmentally desirable
area will not make enough money to fend this off. Granted, healthy GA
contributes economically many other ways, but those ways are mostly
hidden and indirect, making airports still an easy target.

Jose

What we also have to remember is that real estate developers represent
the biggest political money contributors to state and local elections in
the US. As such, they get first ear of the politicians whom they
represent. The developers also create "noise sensitive" groups to do
their dirty work.

We all have to remain vigilant and step on all the plans to "make better
use" of our local airport.

99% of all the airports we use today date from 1946 or
earlier. Most of those are WWII military training fields.



"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in
message
news | In article
,
| Jose wrote:
|
| but the airports won't be threatened with closure if
GA is
| expanding and healthy.
|
| Sure they will. The economic forces are the same - even
a healthy GA
| population at a small airport that is in a
developmentally desirable
| area will not make enough money to fend this off.
Granted, healthy GA
| contributes economically many other ways, but those ways
are mostly
| hidden and indirect, making airports still an easy
target.
|
| Jose
|
| What we also have to remember is that real estate
developers represent
| the biggest political money contributors to state and
local elections in
| the US. As such, they get first ear of the politicians
whom they
| represent. The developers also create "noise sensitive"
groups to do
| their dirty work.
|
| We all have to remain vigilant and step on all the plans
to "make better
| use" of our local airport.

("Jim Macklin" wrote)
99% of all the airports we use today date from 1946 or earlier. Most of
those are WWII military training fields.


The first part seems plausible, the second part does not.


Montblack