The subsidies to GA are MASSIVE

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Why feed the troll?

I find making sport of Skylune to be amusing.

Bah - it's too easy

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Why feed the troll?

I find making sport of Skylune to be amusing.

Bah - it's too easy

"Like shooting dairy cows with a scoped rifle" -- P.J. O"Rourke

Can't argue the facts?

LOL.

The subsidies are massive. I agree with the Bureau of Transportation
statistics study.

You, like the Destroyer, rely on rhetoric. Never quote any numbers, just
silly arguments. The subsidies are obvious, yet all sorts of convoluted
reasoning is used to deny the obvious: MASSIVE TAX SUBSIDIES to GA.
Many studies besides the BTS study have reached this conclusion. Only
advocacy groups, for obvious reasons, deny reality.

BTW, here is what a "professional pilot" thinks about GA:

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/e...index&-nothing

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Can't argue the facts?

Sure I can.

Your facts are wrong. ORH (the airport I'm most familiar with) is not a GA
airport, yet you insist on calling the grants there GA subsidies.


The subsidies are obvious, yet all sorts of convoluted
reasoning is used to deny the obvious: MASSIVE TAX SUBSIDIES to GA.


See above


Many studies besides the BTS study have reached this conclusion. Only
advocacy groups, for obvious reasons, deny reality.

So it's only reality when you decide?



BTW, here is what a "professional pilot" thinks about GA:


Couldn't care less.

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

Can't argue the facts?

LOL.

The subsidies are massive. I agree with the Bureau of Transportation
statistics study.


It's a fact that you have yet to demonstrate a subsidy to GA. One must
conclude that's because there isn't any.