Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

In article ,
Bert Hyman wrote:

(Mxsmanic) wrote in
:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
system?

If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.

The only fees that commercial airlines pay a

1. Landing fees (merged into ticket costs).

2. Gate rentals (again merged into ticket costs).

3. Fuel taxes only on non-revenue flights (ferrying, repositioning,
training)

They pay no fees for use of the ATC system (It comes from direct ticket
taxes)

The bottom line: Airlines are really non-players in the debate and are
pimping user fees as a means of inhibiting competition from high-end GA.

In article .com,
wrote:

On Apr 17, 8:06 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
(Mxsmanic) wrote
:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
system?

If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Not to mention the extra fire hydrants required along streets of the
crash zones for those private communities.. you know who you are...JG

We all know who *YOU* a an ignoranus!

There is no such thing as a "crash zone," nor are there any extra fire
hydrants in communities adjacent to small airports.

Go back and take a long walk off a short pier!

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hyman wrote:

(Mxsmanic) wrote in
:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
system?

If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.

The only fees that commercial airlines pay a

1. Landing fees (merged into ticket costs).

2. Gate rentals (again merged into ticket costs).

3. Fuel taxes only on non-revenue flights (ferrying, repositioning,
training)

They pay no fees for use of the ATC system (It comes from direct
ticket taxes)

The bottom line: Airlines are really non-players in the debate and are
pimping user fees as a means of inhibiting competition from high-end
GA.

Oh they are a player alright. They not only what to inhibit competition they
want to shift the cost.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
William Black writes:

Get a life.

It's a hidden subsidy.

Everybody knows it.

It's something that Europeans would desperately like to believe.

Airbus made a complaint and dropped it so as to make the US drop its
complaint.

Or because the U.S. found out about its own method of getting contracts
through bribes?

Making civil aircraft is an expensive business that has a lot more to do
with maintaining high technology industries and hanging onto high paid
jobs
than profits.

At Airbus, it's all politics, with aviation as a cover.

Stop trying to pretend Boeing are clean, they're just as crooked as
everyone else.

What makes you think that everyone is crooked? There are honest people in
the
world, even if they aren't often in charge of European governments or
corporations.

Oh dear.

In the past five years half the board of Boeing has had to resign because
they were crooks who got caught trying to cheat the US government.

A billion dollars of contracts was stripped from Boeing because they were
caught spying on Lockheed.

Now go and read

http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/pritchard.pdf

And get back to me...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:11:53 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

Indeed. United or Southwest could easily have been the big buyers for
the Eclipse or the Maverick, forming a new subsidiary to handle the
taxi flights. But, no.

You and Gig601 have hit the proverbial nail on the head, Chris.

The airlines (correctly) perceive a threat from VLJs.

NBAA is the organization in their crosshairs; we personal flyers are
merely collateral damage.

The positive response is to sell the golden future, when VLJs and RJs
provide on-demand point-to-point service for everybody and the
airlines operate cattle-cars between a few hubs. (Which is what
NASA's been planning for years.)

The negative response would be a knee-jerk rebuttal justifying the
status quo. That just opens the door to more claims and counterclaims,
which would only serve to call attention to and further disseminate
the original canards.

Don

William Black writes:

A billion dollars of contracts was stripped from Boeing because they were
caught spying on Lockheed.

While some European governments spend nearly comparable amounts spying on the
competitors of their domestic manufacturers in the hope that providing the
latter with inside information will help business (but it usually doesn't).

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
William Black writes:

A billion dollars of contracts was stripped from Boeing because they were
caught spying on Lockheed.

While some European governments spend nearly comparable amounts spying on
the
competitors of their domestic manufacturers in the hope that providing the
latter with inside information will help business (but it usually
doesn't).

Not only is that not proven, it is used by the government of the USA as a
justification for spying on European companies and giving the information to
US companies.

Do you admit now that Boeing is dirty?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black writes:

Not only is that not proven ...

Interesting. I was speculating, and you immediately say that there is no
proof. Hmm.

... it is used by the government of the USA as a
justification for spying on European companies and giving the information to
US companies.

Do you object to the U.S. using the same methods as Europe? It's hard for the
honest guys to win if the other side is cheating.

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

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:05:46 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
om...
William Black writes:


And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What
"hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
thinking of?.

Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You're going to ave to be more specific. What I found involves
government subsidies but not military subsidies.

The Airbus case is that the US government gives Boeing large sums of money
for research into military projects and Boeing uses the technology developed
in its civilian products.

Somehow that doesn't sound so awful, so long as it is legitimate
military research. Or are they suposed to not use info they get
from military research, should it be some sort of secret?



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"William Black" wrote ...

Oh come on.

Tata just bought British Steel.

Laxmi Mittal just bought Arcelor.

Let me know when an Indian buys US Steel...


Well, I suppose that as parlous a shape as they are in, US steel companies
sell at a far higher price than the rusting hulks of the once modest simply
deteriorated British steel industry. Just as the UK's automakers were sold
on the Sheriff's stoop to furriners, now you all are selling off the rest of
the patrimony

It's far easier to "make a bundle" in the US real estate market than by
purchasing US steel companies, and had you traveled in the US in recent
years to catch the smell of curry drifting from the owner's apartments in
all those small town motels, you might better appreciate the extent of
Indian investment