![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 That industry didn't rebound until that tax was repealed. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NAS User Fees Loom Larger! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | December 19th 06 11:33 PM |
Trouble ahead over small plane fees | AJ | Piloting | 90 | April 15th 06 01:19 PM |
What will user fees do to small towered airports | Steve Foley | Piloting | 10 | March 8th 06 03:13 PM |
GA User fees | Jose | Piloting | 48 | December 24th 05 02:12 AM |
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 9 | January 23rd 04 12:23 PM |