If user fees go into effect I'm done

ktbr wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:


People who are not interested in GA don't see it that way. To them,
GA is a
hobby for the rich, and they are justifiably curious as to why they
should
subsidize GA in any way, since they receive nothing in return.


They are ignorant. Every day in this country GA is used by businesses
large to small. We have two UPS contract flights in and out of our GA
airport daily and two check hauling flights daily. Business jets come in
and out of here several times a week on business purposes with any of
dozens of business located in this town or nearby. All this is GA, not
Commercial.

Most people have no clue that much of the products that get shipped to
their homes come via GA.

"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal sightseeing
flights, and warbird activities.

Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.

I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate about
user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.

Sam Spade wrote:

"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal sightseeing
flights, and warbird activities.

Well the so called "hamburger" flying you talk about is probably 30%
or less of the traffic that takes place at this airport. 75% of the fuel
we sell is for business general aviation activities.

Of course when you force out 20% of these useless "hamburger" pilots
then the rest of GA will pay more for parts and maintenance in the
long run... if they can find a place that is still in business to do it.

Besides... Jimmy Carter already tried something like this by raising
taxes on so called "luxury" boats and ended up putting lots of folks
out of work as a result. That industry didn't rebound until that tax
was repealed.

Sam Spade wrote:


"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.

Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.

I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.

Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.

But it is something that just about everyone does, so it's unlikely that any
general public opposition to the practice will arise.

The same cannot be said for $100 hamburgers.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:


"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.

Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.

I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.


Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.


Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.

Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.

I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.


Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to
the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.


Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

It is however, precisely as correct as making the same claim about GA for
personal transportation.

Peter

On 2007-02-12, Sam Spade wrote:
Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.

Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

Of course it isn't because it affects *them*. People are quite willing
to tell other people how to behave and telling other people to pay extra
money, but they aren't so keen when it happens to *them*.

For instance, witness the flap about commercial air travel and global
warming in Britain. The British government and press are banging on
almost non-stop about how terrible commercial air travel is on the
environment - and the government indeed increased taxes on commercial
air travel as a "green tax". It's nothing of the sort though.

Commercial air travel is responsible for something like 8% of the UK's
CO2 emissions. Domestic use is responsible for 30% of the UK's CO2
emissions. Completely *banning* commercial air travel will have less of
an effect (especially considering the travel will still have to happen
somehow, and will just move to some other form of transport) than simply
reducing domestic use of energy by half.

So why is the government targeting commercial air travel with such
vigour, but not going after domestic use, when even a complete ban on
commercial air travel will have less than half of the CO2 reduction of
reducing domestic energy use by half?

Because that way, people don't have to do anything. They feel good
because big, evil airline are being attacked - yet they aren't prepared
to do their own bit which would have demonstrably a far larger effect.
When it comes to the reduction of energy usage, everyone wants *other*
people to reduce their energy usage.

So in effect, the new 'green tax' imposed on airlines recently is
nothing of the sort - it's just more revenue for the government pot
(because it won't reduce air travel, and even if it did, the effect
would be too small to measure).

As far as the FAA et al. - they exist solely for the benefit of
airlines. GA would continue just fine (probably better, in fact) if the
FAA and all its services disappeared tomorrow. The airlines would be
paralyzed. Since the FAA exists solely for the benefit of airlines, then
the airlines can pay for the FAA.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:


As far as the FAA et al. - they exist solely for the benefit of
airlines. GA would continue just fine (probably better, in fact) if the
FAA and all its services disappeared tomorrow. The airlines would be
paralyzed. Since the FAA exists solely for the benefit of airlines, then
the airlines can pay for the FAA.


A bit over the top. Nonetheless, you are about 90% on target!