If user fees go into effect I'm done

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!