The subsidies to GA are MASSIVE

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving from
GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005 capital
grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below. (Note that
these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating subsidy that many
GA airports receive.)

DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...rants_2005.pdf


The data you provided does not indicate a subsidy to GA.

How do you figure, with the 05 capital grants obviously exceeding the
peanuts collected in AV gas taxes? Add in the amounts provided for annual
operating subsidies (which I don't have yet), and you get a MASSIVE
SUBSIDY. (which, by the way, the Bureau of Transportation STatistics
study confirms. GA gets a bigger subsidy than AMTRAK, for goodness
sakes.)

You "patriotic" American private pilots should pay for your own
entertainment. USER FEES NOW!!!

"Skylune" wrote:
How do you figure, with the 05 capital grants obviously exceeding the
peanuts collected in AV gas taxes?

Steven is correct - most of the grants listed appear to be for work that
primarily benefits air transport carriers.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

How do you figure, with the 05 capital grants obviously exceeding the
peanuts collected in AV gas taxes?


How much was collected in AV gas taxes in 05 and how much was spent in
capital grants at airports served only by AV gas burning GA aircraft?



Add in the amounts provided for annual
operating subsidies (which I don't have yet), and you get a MASSIVE
SUBSIDY. (which, by the way, the Bureau of Transportation STatistics
study confirms. GA gets a bigger subsidy than AMTRAK, for goodness
sakes.)


You get a subsidy if more is spent to benefit a specific class of user than
is collected from that same user. You have yet to show that is the case for
AV gas burning GA.

Now, I am assuming the majority of pilots can do simple addition.

Conservatively, take the grants that are clearly for GA airports only, and
compare that to the number (about $180mm) in combined AVgas and Jet A gas
tax receipts.

Then, tell me the GA is not subsidized. Tell me the Bureau of
Transportation statistics is wrong about GA being subsidized (in that
case, maybe AMTRAK isn't subsidized either).

Or, try and change the topic to economic benefits (I can argue that too:
those studies are rigged), supposed national benefits (true only for
remote areas of the country), etc.

Better yet, quote the Destroyer, who laughingly claims that the Highway
trust fund is "going broke" (completely false, as fed gas taxes exceed
amount of outlays, even with all the pork in the ground transportation
projects) while the AV trust fund is doing well.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

Now, I am assuming the majority of pilots can do simple addition.

Conservatively, take the grants that are clearly for GA airports only, and
compare that to the number (about $180mm) in combined AVgas and Jet A gas
tax receipts.


But it isn't clear what grants are for GA airports only.

Conservatively, take the grants that are clearly for GA airports only, and
compare that to the number (about $180mm) in combined AVgas and Jet A gas
tax receipts.

There's your fallacy. One should not take "grants that are clearly for
GA airports only" but "grants that are clearly for GA only". There's a
difference.

Or, take "grants that do not benefit the airlines".

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

No fallacy.

The grants for airports listed as GA can all be considered to benefit GA
only. "R" airports are also largely GA (some that I know almost
exclusively GA). Make conservative assumptions about how much of the
grants are for GA.

Then, compare to the AV gas tax generation. There is no debate, Jose. It
is fact, confirmed by Bureau of Transportation STatistics.

Why doesn't AOPA quote the acutal numbers (revenues, capital outlays, and
operating subsidies) whenever they make their ludicrous claims?
(Rhetorical question)

The grants for airports listed as GA can all be considered to benefit GA
only.

To do so would be an error.

"R" airports are also largely GA (some that I know almost
exclusively GA).

"R" airports benefit airlines by making more room for them elsewhere.
That's their purpose.

There is no debate, Jose.

Then what are we having here, an argument? I'm not allowed to argue
unless you've paid.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
No fallacy.

The grants for airports listed as GA can all be considered to benefit GA
only. "R" airports are also largely GA (some that I know almost
exclusively GA). Make conservative assumptions about how much of the
grants are for GA.

No they can't. As I showed earlier South Arkansas Airport at Goodwin Field
(search he document for 'South Arkansas') is listed as GA but has several
scheduled flight a day.