![]() |
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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The opening post on this thread has the Federal DOT site, which has the data the Reason Foundation uses. They use the operating subsidy per passenger mile statistic, Precisely...averages, but I want to read about marginal costs of GA, or why this approach is not valid. In our Class B area, it's basically about bizjets, burning like $50/hour in fuel tax. It's very clear to me that if those guys weren't up there, only one ATC position -- the "satellite controller" -- goes away. But knowing gov't from the inside as I do, FAA will find a position for that guy in some understaffed place. A net loss to the Treasury. User fees are all about getting additional money that Congress won't provide through the appropriations process, unless they repeal the fuel tax. Is that seriously the plan? Fred F. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tax Srv said:
No attempt necessary; public record. The airport grant money goes big time to air carrier airports; smaller amount to GA airports (and the small fraction who receive grants). And they favor big city "reliever airports" for grant money. This is to take the burden off the big airports during rush hour, delaying the air carriers. An important part of FAA's mission, the latter. And the grant money for small fields also favors safety improvements, another FAA mission. And BTW, nothing in FAA's mission is to foster the GA aircraft industry, nor Boeing. That stuff was removed from their mission statement years ago. Fred F. Right. And using that data, the Reason Foundation shows GA as very heavily subsidized using miles travelled as the metric. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Fred said:
Precisely...averages, but I want to read about marginal costs of GA, or why this approach is not valid. In our Class B area, it's basically about bizjets, burning like $50/hour in fuel tax. It's very clear to me that if those guys weren't up there, only one ATC position -- the "satellite controller" -- goes away. But knowing gov't from the inside as I do, FAA will find a position for that guy in some understaffed place. A net loss to the Treasury. User fees are all about getting additional money that Congress won't provide through the appropriations process, unless they repeal the fuel tax. Is that seriously the plan? Fred F. I don't think the plan is to eliminate the fuel tax, but who knows. I agree that this is about getting additional funding because of pressure on General Fund subsidies. As far as using the marginal cost approach, I don't think this is the right way to measure the costs GA imposes on the system relative to the economic benefits and the taxes paid in. If one additional light plane (or commercial airplane) were to take to the skies, the marginal cost would be nil, or close. I think you are right though, that if air traffic decreases, funding levels will stay about where they are for FAA staffing.... |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
by "Robert M. Gary" Nov 8, 2005 at 01:41 PM
Examples of user fees include highway and bridge tolls, tickets on mass transit, tickets on commercial airline flight (e.g. the $3 security fee tack on -- in addition to taxes), park fees, paying municipal trash collection fees (some jurisdictions build this into tax rates, others charge a fee), water and or/sewer fees, car license fees, car registration fees, etc. Tuitions at public colleges and community college districts are also examples of user fees. Some schools charge kids an athletic fee. And all these are collected on the spot, like a gas tax and none are collected weeks later, like as proposed. The point is if the FBO has to come back later and track down who owes which fees, it is much more difficult than fees that are collected from the pilot on the spot (like landing fees, tie down fees etc). It also takes more effort on the gov't side to compute the amount of the charges, report them and mail you the bill. If someone can tell me why the more complicated way is better, than fine. Otherwise, I'll continue to say that the fuel tax is far easier and cheaper to implement than user fees. If it aint broke... -Robert But the thing is, it IS broke, at least according to the FAA. Doesn't matter much what you or I think.... Administrative complexities are definitely an issue in any new fee structure. They could make it simple, but this is probably the exception. On the other hand, when I flew out of FRG there didn't seem to be any problem in administering the landing fees (I think it was $5 then), so touch and goes were done about 30 miles east at an "uncontrolled" facility. (It was definitely uncontrolled when I was trying to line up the runway!) |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I tried cutting and pasting and
putting quotes before the post I'm responding to (like this). Well, that didn't quite work, and you ran into another internet standard. You did start with "by Jose..., but there wasn't any place where you said "end quote" or something like that. It is this that is the problem reading some of your posts - knowing when the quoted stuff ENDS. That's why I suggested the ending arrows too. Now, there is another internet standard - that is that of a signature line. Any lines which follow a line which consists of just two dashes and a space will be considered a signature, and many newsreaders will format it differently. Some newsreaders can be set to hide signatures. Your post quoted mine in its entirety (including the signature) and your new text followed mine, after my signature line separator, and was thus considered a "signature" by my newsreader (and most other newsreaders I'm sure). You probably want to avoid that. So, be aware (or make your website aware) of signature line separators when you post, and more of your posts will be readable. Yes, manually inserting arrows on each line is a pain, which is why I suggested a simple "quote" and "end quote" method for you. I do it myself when necessary. Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Skylune" wrote in message lkaboutaviation.com... Tax Srv said: No attempt necessary; public record. The airport grant money goes big time to air carrier airports; smaller amount to GA airports (and the small fraction who receive grants). And they favor big city "reliever airports" for grant money. This is to take the burden off the big airports during rush hour, delaying the air carriers. An important part of FAA's mission, the latter. And the grant money for small fields also favors safety improvements, another FAA mission. And BTW, nothing in FAA's mission is to foster the GA aircraft industry, nor Boeing. That stuff was removed from their mission statement years ago. Fred F. Right. And using that data, the Reason Foundation shows GA as very heavily subsidized using miles travelled as the metric. Miles traveled is not a useful metric. The only metric that would at all be useful is how much would they save if a given group weren't using the system. Let's say I plan to go fly today out of my uncontrolled airport. The FAA isn't going to save 1/1,000,000th of a dime should I or any other recreational flyers choose to NOT fly to day. In fact it will cost them in unearned fuel taxes. They aren't widening the runway for me there not even doing it for the bizjet crowd. They are doing it so the airline that flys into here 4 or 5 times a day can use either runway. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote: That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious that the FAA has nothing to do with it. RK Henry Hello, its President Bush that is proposing user fees. hello, user fees were being discussed during the clinton administration. -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Skylune" wrote in message lkaboutaviation.com... "by Jose Nov 8, 2005 at 08:47 PM Just a request to Skylune - since your quoting doesn't quite work, at least manually put two arrows before and after what you are quoting. for example, this would be quoted Even if it isn't internet style, it sets a quote apart from the rest, and is fairly easy to do even in plain text. Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address." Sorry 'bout that, Jose. The "newsreaders" (I think they are called that) seem to do that automatically, whereas my talkaboutaviation.com site doesn't automatically put stuff in context when I hit "Post a Reply." I tried cutting and pasting and putting quotes before the post I'm responding to (like this). I know that's not protocol, but its a real pain to put arrows and double arrows, etc. in manually. The solution is to stop using talkaboutaviation.com, and use a news reader against the appropriate USENET news group. You do have home Internet access don't you? If so then your ISP should provide the address for the news server. If you are doing all your posting from work then shame on you for goofing off instead of working. Like it or not, you do have some valid points, but they are getting lost in your out-of-control, unintelligible posts. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The solution is to stop using talkaboutaviation.com, and use a news reader
against the appropriate USENET news group. That is the best solution, but using start arrows and end arrows (each on a separate line for clarity) is sufficient, I believe, for legibility, and requires the least of the poster who for whatever reason chooses to post through an "unapproved source". ![]() Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Mike Rapoport" wrote: That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious that the FAA has nothing to do with it. RK Henry Hello, its President Bush that is proposing user fees. hello, user fees were being discussed during the clinton administration. -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule Yes and they were not implemented. Mike MU-2 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|