If user fees go into effect I'm done

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.

Well the so called "hamburger" flying you talk about is probably 30%
or less of the traffic that takes place at this airport. 75% of the fuel
we sell is for business general aviation activities.

Of course when you force out 20% of these useless "hamburger" pilots
then the rest of GA will pay more for parts and maintenance in the
long run... if they can find a place that is still in business to do it.

Besides... Jimmy Carter already tried something like this by raising
taxes on so called "luxury" boats and ended up putting lots of folks
out of work as a result. That industry didn't rebound until that tax
was repealed.

B A R R Y wrote:
Not quite. Most of it _is_ commercial, but it's not scheduled airline
service, so it's GA. LOTS of GA is commercial in nature. G

Exactly. Thanks for making my point.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people
in my town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the
availability of GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up
and blow away if any one of these left and would certainly do so if
any two of them did.

What type of business are these companies in?

Oil, Chemical and Timber.

Mxsmanic wrote:

That may be true, as a rigid and compulsory educational system can
raise literacy rates by forcing everyone to learn to read. However,
97% is probably optimistic.

I gave you rates that were from widely different sources and they varied by
only 2%. You said "A number of studies that I've read..." which one of those
responses seems the more authoritative?

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.

Jim Logajan writes:

That conflicts with the FAA definition.

I don't work for the FAA.

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

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

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.

But it is something that just about everyone does, so it's unlikely that any
general public opposition to the practice will arise.

The same cannot be said for $100 hamburgers.

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

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I gave you rates that were from widely different sources and they varied by
only 2%. You said "A number of studies that I've read..." which one of those
responses seems the more authoritative?

The ones I read, as they explained and displayed their data and methodology in
detail. Illiteracy is a serious problem in the United States.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Tort reform would help. As it is now if you go to the Doctor with a
cold he is more likly than not to run tests that aren't going to
find anything other than you have a cold because of the off chance
that you might have something else.

How would you handle doctors who are truly guilty of malpractice?
What sort of reforms would you enact?

Loser pays for a start. If that is to much for you the jury could be given 3
options instead of 2.

1. For the plaintiff
2. For the defendant
3. This case is so silly the plaintiff AND their attorney needs to pay the
defendant's legal fees plus some amount for wasting everybody's time.


Higher deductible are a good thing for a couple of reasons. They
make the insured take more care when they decide to see a doctor. In
the US it is not unusual for people to go to the doctor when they
really don't need to because all it is going to cost them, out of
their own pocket at that moment is $30.00. When they do the first
issue comes into play.

I've always thought it would be nice to have a policy that requires
you to pay back any medical expenses in the last six months of your
life out of your estate. Most people run up more than half their
lifetime medical bills during their terminal illness. If you exclude
these bills from coverage, you can dramatically lower premiums. And
since you can't take it with you, there no reason not to use the
estate to pay the final bills.


Well the wife or husband might have a problem with that particular idea.


A better fix than the higher deductable is a Health Savings Account.
It has all the systemic benefits of the high deductable and really
causes people to take ownership of their health care.

People have very little control over whether or not they get sick.
Most cannot save enough to pay for major medical care, no matter how
hard they try, and no matter how healthy they stay. The first
hospital visit will wipe out their savings (as it routinely does
already for many people).


Most of those with an HSA would also have a Major Medical policy for things
like heart attacks or cancer.

Mxsmanic wrote:
ktbr writes:


Besides, one way or the other you WILL pay for it, sort of like
increasing taxes on corporations... I wonder what the airlines can
charge to ship a package from point A to B once the competition
of GA is history.


About the same as now. It's mostly an administrative distinction.


Please provide some additional information that would support your
statement.