User Fees are coming closer to being very real

"B A R R Y" wrote

I don't know about you folks, but all of my regular GA haunts are
frequented by a pretty decent number of "spectators" outside the
fences who enjoy watching airplanes, even if they don't fly. Wanna'
get a nice feeling? Watch the reaction of little kids when you wave
or salute them as you taxi by. That kid might be a future astronaut
because of your silly wave.

The airport in Bermuda is one of the few places heavy iron flies where you
can get close to the runway, by standing next to the airport fence. I even
got a few waves by the captains of some airliners, when I waved to them.
You can stand pretty close to the end of the runway, and feel the wake
vorticies, after they fly overhead. I didn't get tumbled though, like they
did in "Pushing Tin."

Drats! g
--
Jim in NC

In article . com,
says...


I make sure EVERYONE that will listen knows that our "little" airport
brings in $5.5 million dollars each year, for an annual investment of
just $186,000.



I sure wish I could find an argument like that for the airport where my
folks live. It's a town of 20K pop and a typical, general use airport with
a 3700ft paved strip. There's a smallish freight operation there, which,
with the FBO services must account for 15 or so jobs, not more. Other than
this, the airport " might " account for a hundred hotel nights a year, and
that's pushing it. Small planes fly over a golf course and a few rich
peoples' homes, and though the airport is not at all threatened at the
moment, it would just take one letter to the local paper from an annoyed
lawyer to get the ball rolling. Once rolling, I don't see any honest
economic argument in favor of the airport, except perhaps one of future
value. The airport is of little economic consequence to the community
today, but if gone, it will be all the more difficult in the future to
find enough open space to create an airport, and one may regret a
short-sighted decision. That's about the best I can think of.

GF

In article ,
says...


Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.


Anecdote:
I actually know of a case in Europe where, because of its unique eco-system,
close to a city, but still quite wild, a medium-sized municipal airport has
become a recognized " endangered habitat " for some species of birds. It's
endangered of course because lawyers living nearby want to close it down, and
developers have their eyes on the open land. The city has grown out towards
the airport, to where the once forsaken territory now has immense value. The
environmentalists who prepared the bird report are stuck between a
philosophical rock and hard place - being dyed-in-the-wool
environmentalists, they cannot actually favor the continued existence of the
airport - Heaven forbid - but they admit it is the unique blend of open
space, grassland and even the method of upkeep of the airport that provides
the habitat for the birds. They even say if the airport were to be
eliminated, certain species could be in danger of extinction. Their proposal?
Well since they cannot actually come out and oppose closing the airport, they
suggest "in the event of an airport closure" the land should be maintained as
it is, with full maintenance staff at cost to the community, in order to
preserve the wild bird habitat. Now there's a progressive proposal for ya!
Eliminate the revenue portions of the operation, which allow it to be
self-sufficient and even a substantial economic motor for the community, but
maintain the land upkeep at cost to the residents! So far, I think it is only
an enlightened few who see the common sense in this proposal.

GF

"B A R R Y" wrote

What I REALLY want to do is shut down, climb out, and see if they want to
go
for a ride. I've never had the guts to do that -- have you?


One of these days... Maybe we'll make that a goal for this spring.

Has anyone ever done this?

A few years ago my wife and I were taxiing in after a nice trip out for
lunch and some general flying around the area. As we taxiied past the
parking lot I noticed a young boy standing beside the car the rest of his
family was in with a look on his face that I knew all too well.

We shut down by the fuel pumps and I walked over to introduce myself to his
parents and to offer their son a ride. His parents said sure, he could go
if he wanted. Unfortunately, the youngster was just a little too shy to
take me up on it, even if his parents were going to be along for the ride
too.

Even so, it felt good to be able to offer something like that to someone
since I can rememeber spending many similar days at the airport myself,
hoping against hope for a similar opportunity to come along, but it never
did.

If you get the chance I'd say by all means do it.

Bruce

Those rich people might need an air ambulance some night or
a doctor to fly-in.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
| In article
. com,
| says...
|
|
| I make sure EVERYONE that will listen knows that our
"little" airport
| brings in $5.5 million dollars each year, for an annual
investment of
| just $186,000.
|
|
|
| I sure wish I could find an argument like that for the
airport where my
| folks live. It's a town of 20K pop and a typical, general
use airport with
| a 3700ft paved strip. There's a smallish freight operation
there, which,
| with the FBO services must account for 15 or so jobs, not
more. Other than
| this, the airport " might " account for a hundred hotel
nights a year, and
| that's pushing it. Small planes fly over a golf course and
a few rich
| peoples' homes, and though the airport is not at all
threatened at the
| moment, it would just take one letter to the local paper
from an annoyed
| lawyer to get the ball rolling. Once rolling, I don't see
any honest
| economic argument in favor of the airport, except perhaps
one of future
| value. The airport is of little economic consequence to
the community
| today, but if gone, it will be all the more difficult in
the future to
| find enough open space to create an airport, and one may
regret a
| short-sighted decision. That's about the best I can think
of.
|
| GF
|

Greg Farris opined

In article ,
says...


Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.


Anecdote:
I actually know of a case in Europe where, because of its unique eco-system,
close to a city, but still quite wild, a medium-sized municipal airport has
become a recognized " endangered habitat " for some species of birds. It's
endangered of course because lawyers living nearby want to close it down, and
developers have their eyes on the open land. The city has grown out towards
the airport, to where the once forsaken territory now has immense value. The
environmentalists who prepared the bird report are stuck between a
philosophical rock and hard place - being dyed-in-the-wool
environmentalists, they cannot actually favor the continued existence of the
airport - Heaven forbid - but they admit it is the unique blend of open
space, grassland and even the method of upkeep of the airport that provides
the habitat for the birds. They even say if the airport were to be
eliminated, certain species could be in danger of extinction. Their proposal?
Well since they cannot actually come out and oppose closing the airport,
they suggest "in the event of an airport closure" the land should be
maintained as it is, with full maintenance staff at cost to the community,
in order to preserve the wild bird habitat. Now there's a progressive
proposal for ya! Eliminate the revenue portions of the operation, which
allow it to be self-sufficient and even a substantial economic motor for the
community, but maintain the land upkeep at cost to the residents! So far, I
think it is only an enlightened few who see the common sense in this
proposal.

KCON is in a simular situation. There is a species of butterfly that lives on
the aiport, and it is endangered. Add in the National Guard, the state capital
and 1/2 of Louden's NASCAR team traffic, it is a safe to survive airport.

The rest of the GA airports in NH are not so asured of survival.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

In article a1GOf.115894$QW2.114637@dukeread08,
says...


Those rich people might need an air ambulance some night or
a doctor to fly-in.


They have a helicopter landing site at the local hospital.


As it stands right now, many of those lawyers have planes, and are the
staunchest supporters of the airport. As I said earlier, there is no
direct threat to the airport at present - to their credit, they are
even thinking of expanding it slightly so larger aircraft can land there,
because they think this could improve its economic contribution. However,
if they decide not to expand it, let's say for cost reasons, or
because the environmental impact study is not favorable enough, and if a
few of those flying lawyers move away, or stop flying, and a movement to
restrict or close the airfield gains a foothold, I cannot see any honest
economic argument to counter it.

GF

However, if they decide not to expand [the airport ...]
I cannot see any honest economic argument to counter it.

Not all reasons are economic.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Unless you're suggesting that the current fuel taxes would/should be
eliminated under the "User's Fee" plan? I wouldn't oppose that,
philosophically, although such a tax collection system would be
incredibly less efficient than the current one.

That may work but I have heard no details about the "user fee" system.
If they charge for weather briefings then many people will stop
calkling in. If they charge for filing a flight plan then those are
likely to plummet.

If they charge for flight following (which I use) then expect that to
drop as well.

Overall a user fee is likely to decrease safety.

Imagine when I fly above 00V now I talk to Springs Approach so that
they know where I am and in doing so I am able to help minimize
impacts to air carriers flying into COS. If they decide to charge for
that I might just quit talking with them which may impact flights into
COS as they divert around an unverified target. Note that I often fly
higher than commercial traffic as it passes 00V.

We shall see what happens.

Ron Lee

That may work but I have heard no details about the "user fee" system.
If they charge for weather briefings then many people will stop
calkling in. If they charge for filing a flight plan then those are
likely to plummet.

If they charge for flight following (which I use) then expect that to
drop as well.

Overall a user fee is likely to decrease safety.

Precisely.

Which is why (even if it starts out differently) user's fees won't be
restricted to voluntary stuff. They will have to apply to mandatory
things -- like takeoffs and landings -- simply because otherwise the
bureaucratic economics won't add up when pilots stop using the voluntary
things.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"