Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:20:12 GMT, "William Black"
wrote in
:

It's a strategy that requires lots of rich people who want to fly short
distances.

The Boeing 707 killed that idea. People wanted big cheap aircraft that took
them quickly to somewhere within about five hundred miles of where they were
going, after that they can use local transport, flying or not...

NASA's and FAA's vision of the future for air travel, Small
Aviation Transportation System (SATS), is based on small airport
infrastructure as an alternative to short-range automotive trips
for both private and business transportation needs.

That's why Robert Poole's duplicitous assertion about it being
inappropriate for FAA to fund improvements at smaller, non airline,
airports is a deliberate, sensationalized, sound-bite attempt to
mislead the lay public. That arrogant, propaganda spewing, jerk needs
to be exposed for the fraud he and his Reason Foundation are.
http://www.reason.org/airtraffic/


http://www.reason.org/poole.shtml
Poole was among the first to propose the commercialization of the U.S.
air traffic control system, and his work in this field has helped
shape proposals for a U.S. air traffic control corporation. A version
of his corporation concept was implemented in Canada in 1996 and was
more recently endorsed by several former top FAA administrators.

Poole's studies also launched a national debate on airport
privatization in the United States. He advised both the FAA and local
officials during the 1989-90 controversy over the proposed
privatization of Albany (NY) Airport. His policy research on this
issue helped inspire Congress' 1996 enactment of the Airport
Privatization Pilot Program and the privatization of Indianapolis'
airport management under Mayor Steve Goldsmith.

hummingbird wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

"hummingbird" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.
Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.
Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho.

I wouldn't expect the airports mentioned in the article to see overseas
travel anytime soon. I'm not sure how many of them even have commercial
service. And if they do attract low-cost domestic carriers, what do
those airlines fly? Frontier has Airbus A318s and 319s. Jet Blue?
Airbus, and Embraer. Southwest flies Boeing 737s, but I don't think the
subsidies are aimed at them in particular.

The B787 is likely to let airports like Denver add routes. And as
traffic grows, airlines will put on bigger jets. For some airlines,
that will mean a B747, and for others, an A340. This rising tide lifts
all boats.

Louis

On Apr 17, 6:45 am, hummingbird wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:





"hummingbird" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho

Never blame on cunning, that which can be explained by stupidity.
The US fed govt. has been "feeding" money to smaller local
governments in all manner for decades. We call it "pork" over here.
Airports are just one of many ways. In ye olde days LBJ refered to
it as "revenue sharing". These days the mother of all methods is
through HSA. There is money to "secure" smaller airports. This
can be used to install new monitoring and communciation equipment,
erect fences with "security" gates, build new "secure" hangers, etc.
Frequently these are new facilities the local community had been
trying to build for years anyway. Or regular maintance that needed
doing anyway. But now the feds are there to help!

Trust me, when the feds want to "help" Boeing, they pay the money
directly to Boeing.

hummingbird writes:

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more governments,
and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments. You don't see that
kind of incest in the U.S., which is one reason why the U.S. has a healthier
economy.

Your speculation above sounds like a rather farfetched conspiracy theory.
Building an entire infrastructure to please a single private company? I don't
think so. My guess is that the two notions are completely independent.

Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by itself,
and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics.

It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
governments spy on foreign competitors, every sound business decision is
overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be operated
without government interference.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more
governments,
and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments.

I think that you may have exagerated that slightly.

Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by
itself,

And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

I don't think anyone doubts that at all.

The big maarket for the A380 will almost certainly be the Far East where
very large numbers of people want to fly reasonably large distances and
economic expantion will allow them to do so very soon.

We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
phenominal rates.

It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
governments spy on foreign competitors, every sound business decision is
overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be
operated
without government interference.

What US company operates without government interference?

--
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 Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:57:48 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

hummingbird writes:

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more governments,
and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments. You don't see that
kind of incest in the U.S., which is one reason why the U.S. has a healthier
economy.

That is entirely untrue. Remind me of how many of Bush's first cabinet
had direct links to big oil and/or the Jewish Lobby and/or Israel. I
often wonder why the American people have handed over their govt
to Israel.

I am no advocate of Euro business because it does co-operate with govt
far too much IMHO, especially the banks. The EU Tax Directive was
one very good example which effectively killed off private offshore
banking without so much as a whimper.

But for sure, big money and govt are much closer in bed in the US
than in Europe or any other part of the world. American foreign policy
is known to have a huge commercial element behind it. Then of course
there's the Jewish Lobby...and MS's new found friendship with the
music/film industry reflected in Vista DRM controls.

By the original definition of fascism, the US is much closer to it
than any other major western nation.


Your speculation above sounds like a rather farfetched conspiracy theory.
Building an entire infrastructure to please a single private company? I don't
think so. My guess is that the two notions are completely independent.

That may be so. But it's been long alleged that the US fed govt
overpays Boeing for its military planes as an indirect subsidy to
Boeing's commercial plane business. Long ago, it was the fed govt
who helped to kill off Concorde to protect US aircraft plane makers
using the lame excuse of noise etc.
The US fed govt also heavily subsidies American agricultural industry
despite its frequent claims to want free markets and free competiton.
Ask the rice farmers of Ghana.


Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by itself,
and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

ISTR that Boeing's Execs have had their fair share of chaos and
corruption in recent times.

Clearly there is a strong difference between Boeing and Airbus as to
how they see the plane market developing and I would expect the fed
govt to do whatever it can to support Boeing's direction.

I don't think the A380 was intended for the US domestic market.
Those two big economies in Asia are where the growing market is...


But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics.

It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
governments spy on foreign competitors,

ISTR that it was Boeing who used the fed's Echelon satellite spy
system to spy on Airbus contract negotiations some while ago.
Apart from that, industrial espionage goes on by all countries.


every sound business decision is
overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be operated
without government interference.

You have an unreal view of Europe. Yes, it is becoming a totalitarian
nightmare of Orwellian proportions but the US is also not far behind.
American people have surrendered freedom in return for security -
but will get neither.

I make these comments not because I am anti-American but because
America used to be the only place where freedom and liberty still
existed and there was still hope for mankind.....

hummingbird writes:

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

Whatever the reason, I don't see why it's so objectionable.

The government spends untold billions to build and maintain a national highway
system and endless motor vehicle infrastructure around the country, and nobody
objects to that, even though almost all of this is designed to serve private
drivers driving their own cars. They _could_ use public transportation
instead (just a people use commercial airlines to fly). Perhaps people who
drive their own cars instead of taking the bus should be called "hobby
drivers," if GA pilots are "hobby pilots."

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

(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.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(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.

For the most part, that is called fares.

(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(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.

For the most part, that is called fares.

How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the airports
and air traffic control system other than through fees that are
included in those fares?

So, do the fees collected by the commercial airlines through their
fares and then paid to various agencies completely cover the costs of
building and operating airports and the air traffic control system?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |