A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GA's "fair share"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old November 8th 05, 09:42 PM
TaxSrv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA's


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  
Old November 8th 05, 10:08 PM
Skylune
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA's

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  
Old November 8th 05, 10:15 PM
Skylune
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA's

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  
Old November 8th 05, 10:20 PM
Skylune
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA's

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  
Old November 8th 05, 10:20 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default posting style (was GA's)

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  
Old November 8th 05, 10:25 PM
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA's


"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  
Old November 8th 05, 10:37 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA's

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  
Old November 8th 05, 10:48 PM
Tom Conner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA's


"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  
Old November 8th 05, 10:52 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA's

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  
Old November 9th 05, 12:00 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA's


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.