A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Trouble ahead over small plane fees



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 11th 06, 05:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skyloon" wrote:

I think subsidies make alot of sense for some states, esp remote rural
airstrips in AK or WY.


What is the cost of remote rural airstrips in AK or WY?


  #2  
Old April 11th 06, 05:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

by "Steven P. McNicoll" Apr 11, 2006 at 04:09
PM


In article
outaviation.com,
"Skyloon" wrote:


What is the cost of remote rural airstrips in AK or WY?



Capital costs would obviously depend upon the length of the runway, number
of runways, equipment, etc. Operating costs would depend on towered vs.
nontowered, number of maintenance personnel, etc. So it would vary.

The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.



  #3  
Old April 11th 06, 06:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.


Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #4  
Old April 11th 06, 07:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 05:52 PM


The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but

traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations

of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some

MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.


Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?

Jose




Back to form! I think those are legitimate questions. As I mentioned
though, I think if those towns want access THEY should provide local tax
(or state tax) subsidies, not you or I. On the other hand, I do think
there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or
supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible.


The Reason Foundation (libertarian leanings, in sync with my own political
philosophy) has interesting publications on their view of subsidies
(generally against) that you might be interested in.



  #5  
Old April 11th 06, 07:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

On the other hand, I do think
there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or
supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible.


What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay?

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program.
It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.

You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them,
making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't
like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the
other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive
subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse
for inconsistancy that does not wash.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #6  
Old April 11th 06, 07:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees


"Jose" wrote in message
t...

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program. It
is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.


The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I
don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by
the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe
libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves a
valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that
serves pure science.


  #7  
Old April 11th 06, 07:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by
the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees...


You are correct, I was imprecise. However the result would be quite
similar. It would eliminate the public libraries we all (or most of us)
know and love. It would eliminate support for pure science (and the
part of the space program that generates results accessible to the public)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #8  
Old April 11th 06, 07:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

by "Steven P. McNicoll" Apr 11, 2006 at 06:31
PM


The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I
don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of
libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by

the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe

libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves
a

valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that
serves pure science.




Yes. In general, user fees that do not distort economic behaviour are
favored over general tax support. If I provide a subsidy for something,
more of it will be created than the economics justify. For that reason,
taxes should only be levied for things that are purely in the interest of
the public at large.

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should
therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a local airport, they
charge no landing fees, charge only about $600 per year for a tie down,
and thats it. Overnight tie-down is $5. Yet, they receive millions of
dollars in AIP grants (derived from general taxpayer dollars and
commercial airline ticket taxes), $150K annual operating subsidy, state
subsidies, etc. They even wanted the city to kick in some $$ so as not to
"burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my boating: It costs $3500
per year for the slip; transient slips will cost upwards of $75 per
night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal infrastructure compared to an
active GA airport. Tax subsidies make GA flying artificially cheap.




  #9  
Old April 11th 06, 07:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 06:20 PM


What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay?

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program.
It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.

You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them,
making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't
like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the
other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive
subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse
for inconsistancy that does not wash.




I agree that libertarianism taken to an extreme would result in no roads,
libraries, health care, etc. I don't want to live in a society that is
like the wild west, nor would most others I think.

Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.
Aircraft noise is an externality that has no cost to the aviator. The
victims cannot even identify the fliers, and if they do, no one is
responsible. A classic catch-22: the FAA says the airport is
responsible, the airport says the FAA is responsible, and most of the
fliers simply say "F- You: Its my right to make noise" or silly variants
like the airport was there first. The cost of noise pollution is borne
100% by those on the ground, and they have little to no political recourse
(in most places). As I said before, there are laws on the books in most
communities that target noise pollution: Only plane noise is exempt.


There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline
taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects. So there are in fact
negative subsidies. See the BTS study I posted for info.

You might find the Reason Foundation study interesting, and you'll see its
not that harsh on nonbusiness GA (see pp. 31- from below link). They
propose keeping the current GA avgas tax as the preferred funding method,
even though correctly stating that it generates only 3% of Trust Fund $$.
(They also debunk some absurd Boyerisms, but then come down largely on his
side for funding of FSS, for e.g.).

http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf

  #10  
Old April 11th 06, 07:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.


Huh? That doesn't stop the noise. And usually the noise is coming from
whoever they hired, who aren't going to stop either. And it drones on
hour after hour, when one neighbor stops, the other starts. And it's a
whine that is very piercing (all the energy is located in a narrow band
of the spectrum) so a mile away even at low volume it is annoying.
Neighbors who blow leaves basically have the attitude "Its my right to
make noise" coupled with the "need" to blow the leaves instead of raking.

There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline
taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects.


The gas tax subsidizes the trains. Why shouldn't the subway riders pay
the full cost of the subway, even if it means ten dollars a ticket?
(There are reasons, and they are similar in nature to the GA arguments)

My point in any case is not that GA is or is not subsidized (or should
or should not be). It is that you are inconsistant in your reasoning,
and your choice of target.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cirrus chute deployment -- an incredible story Michael182/G Instrument Flight Rules 48 July 14th 05 03:52 PM
Small plane crash lands on freeway in LA area Skywise Piloting 17 June 24th 05 04:37 AM
My first lesson Marco Rispoli Aerobatics 3 May 17th 05 08:23 AM
My first aerobatic lesson Marco Rispoli Piloting 6 April 13th 05 02:21 PM
Plane down - NASCAR team plane crashes... Chuck Piloting 10 October 28th 04 12:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.