AOPA talking rubbish

"Jose" wrote in message
...
You think that only 5% or so of
the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?

As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
provides the benefit.

The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...

...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of at
the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Jose

Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why should
GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is involved -
smells of pork bellies:-)

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:22:45 -0000, "Chris" wrote:

Well if you can to the UK you could use your FAA certificate and not worry
about a temporary certificate at all because its not needed. However in a G
reg you would be limited to day VFR only but in an N reg you would have full
privileges.

Now how easy is that.

Not very easy.

I have no reason to go to England. I have good reason to go to the Azores,
and do so frequently. There are no N-registered a/c available to me there
-- only Portugese registered.
--ron

"Skylune" wrote:
A more honest argument would be that eliminating the massive tax
subsidies that go to the thousands of GA airports (for capital as well
as operating purposes), would increase the costs to GA.

There are 14,501 airports (73% of all airports) in the U.S. that are
private-use airports with no FAA involvement and getting no FAA tax
subsidies.

If you had an honest argument you'd have presented numbers. Well, there are
the numbers and they don't support your assertion.

In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
...
You think that only 5% or so of
the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?

As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
provides the benefit.

The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...

...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of at
the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Jose

Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why should
GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is involved -
smells of pork bellies:-)

Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).

I do not believe it.

I own a C150 and here are the costs I'm looking at, you can decide if
one has to be wealty or not.
BTW, numbers are in euro, euro/dollar exchange about 1.31.

Annual +100 hrs + comm and x-ponder check 900,-
Insurance 880,-/year
Fuel burn 40,-/hr
Hangar 148,-/month
Medical 140,-/2 year
Licence renewal 80,-/ 2 year
Licence for comm/nav/x-ponder 113,-/year

My mechanic 55,-/hr
For parts use the price in dollar and convert to euro 1:1 this because
of shipping and VAT.

Landing fees ranging from nothing to 15,- mostly 10,-
At my home field I pay 2,50/landing
No user fees.
Wx briefing from nothing to 80ct/min if I've to make a phone call,
40ct/SMS if I use that for TAF and/or Metar.

-Kees(not wealty)

On 2007-02-21, Chris wrote:
Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why should
GA pay less.

A typical GA aircraft does no damage to the runway. A Boeing 747 makes a
serious and measurable amount of wear with each landing. A typical GA
aircraft can make a very short approach, and not occupy much of ATC's
time or the runway during the takeoff/landing.

Those big hard surfaced runways are there entirely for the benefit of
the airlines - GA doesn't need them at all, so why should GA be paying
for them (particularly thinking of Skylune's example here - he goes on
about the airport improvement fund and GA's contribution, when GA
doesn't actually need any of that stuff but the airlines absolutely
require it).

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

On 2007-02-22, wrote:
40ct/SMS if I use that for TAF and/or Metar.


By the way, if your phone does GPRS, you can get TAF/METARs for free
over the internet with no frills (so they fit on your phone's screen
with no decorations that websites normally add).

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

Chris opined

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
You think that only 5% or so of
the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?

As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
provides the benefit.

The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...

...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of at
the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Jose

Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why should
GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is involved -
smells of pork bellies:-)

$400 makes sense, for an IFR slot. On a VMC day a VFR aircraft is not using
a scarce resource. The marginal cost of a VFR aircraft is nearly $0.

Unless you want to try to run a scheduled airline that only flies VFR...


-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

On Feb 22, 3:52 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2007-02-22, wrote:

40ct/SMS if I use that for TAF and/or Metar.

By the way, if your phone does GPRS, you can get TAF/METARs for free
over the internet with no frills (so they fit on your phone's screen
with no decorations that websites normally add).

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

I'm too cheap to buy a decent phone ;-)

Thanks for the tip, I'll try to remeber that one next time I go
shopping for a phone.

-Kees

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
...
You think that only 5% or so of
the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?

As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
provides the benefit.

The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...

...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of
at
the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Jose

Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to
take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
should
GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
involved -
smells of pork bellies:-)

Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).

GA on welfare from the taxpayer again