Senators still demand user fees

"Neil Gould" wrote in message . ..
As I see it, "their biggest problem" is OUR biggest problem. Both parties
are warped beyond any practical use as far as tackling the most pertinent
issues of our time. Anyone that toes their parties' line, whether it be
Republican catering to religious radicals or Democratic notions of walking
away from the messes we created, should be rejected out of hand.

The discussion of user fees reflects an effort to maintain the status-quo,
where corporate interests trump those of the general public. The rhetoric
supporting fees exposes the disdain that politicians hold for us, as they
presume that we are too stupid to see through their ploys. Yet, the
"opposition" is too weak to force the real issues onto the table for an
honest discussion. And, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that these
same folks get re-elected.

Neil
"I've seen the enemy, and they is US" - Pogo



Maybe we need to organize a big fly-in to DC somewhere, be sure it is 'advertised by the straight shooting media (gag),
and bring our point to them in person.

Blueskies wrote:



Maybe we need to organize a big fly-in to DC somewhere, be sure it is 'advertised by the straight shooting media (gag),
and bring our point to them in person.


Now you are talking... I love the idea! Large and/or visible
dissent to their good-ol-boy, backroom wheeling and dealing
seems to be the onyt thing they listen to.

Take a look at the recent amnesty fiasco. It's been quite a
while since I sent so many emails and made so many phone calls
over that issue. They felt the pressure and could pull a fast
one on the vast majority of taxpayers on that slick deal.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:15:28 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:33:04 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested
interest or bias of some sort?

What in\terest would that be?

I've no idea. I don't care enough to learn.

Nuff' said.

Good. Take my lack of interest in why the authors distort and use it as
an excuse to leave unanswered that they do distort (and that you cite them
anyway).

How very USENET.

- Andrew

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:19:34 -0700, TheSmokingGnu wrote:

The proposals need about 16 hours a year in time savings for the light
category jets to break even, of approx. 450 hours a year. That equates
to about 2.5 minutes of time savings per day. We could achieve this kind
of time saving by simply whipping the controllers vigorously until they
begin to issue clearances faster, or perhaps just at a faster vocal
clip.

Can you cite where in there you found this type of math; I've missed it.
I'm esp. curious whether the delays in question really are the result of
ATC throughput or if they're runway throughput.

[...]
What kinds of contingencies are
planned when corporate traffic drops to practically nothing, and the
airlines are sitting fat and happy on their tax-less fuel?

They can't plan for that. It would show the folly/dishonesty of charging
GA the "cost of services provided". The costs would remain fixed, or
perhaps drop trivially w/o GA, while the airlines - with their new tax
breaks some Senators are trying to grant - kept the system in high use.

It would be useful, though, to show what it would take to reduce ATC
service costs. For example, how low would traffic have to drop before
(for example) NY TRACON would be able to reduce staff by merging sectors?

Admittedly, this could fall out to either side of the argument. For
example, around KCDW I rarely hear KEWR traffic (that I can recall); it's
usually just KTEB, KMMU, and the smaller fields. If GA disappeared, could
a few sectors be merged and seats be removed?

I'm not sure of my recollection, mind you. I may simply recall the KTEB
and KMMU traffic because their approaches are close to KCDW so I tend to
pay more attention to those flights on the frequency. I'd not really know
the source of a departure.

Immediately south of KCDW, come to think on it, I know I've been mixed in
with KEWR departures. So that seat/sector would remain unchanged.

I'll pay more attention next time I'm up. But this is the sort of study
that *someone* should do.


This proposal would seem to advocate throwing wads of cash at a problem
that doesn't yet exist, while simultaneously making it nearly impossible
for an individual or entity to own or operate a private aircraft.

I continue to wonder if this isn't someone's goal. After all, all those
corporate flights are seats not sold by the airlines. I've difficulty
taking this seriously, though, as the number of GA seats just isn't
significant compared to the cattle cars currently run by the airlines.

Heh Perhaps this is not caused by the airlines, but by the telecoms
companies. Each GA flight is a teleconference not had laugh.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Can you cite where in there you found this type of math; I've missed it.

In the last of the four links provided by Matt Barrow in his post,
reposted here for clarity:

http://www.reason.org/ps347_business_jets_atc.pdf

Table 5, Page 27.

To put the same math another way, the kind of savings required to break
even under the proposed costs is 1.33 hours per month. If a corporate
jet flew once every two weeks, it would have to save a combined 40
minutes a _flight_ in time under ATC just to remain at current cost levels.

I'm esp. curious whether the delays in question really are the result of
ATC throughput or if they're runway throughput.

The proposals thus far presented try to make the case that it is the
former, caused in large part by the wide margins necessary in a
human-controlled and administrated system. Earlier however, the
inference is made that the proposed system will prevent a hypothetical
"rationing" situation wherein flights will be given priority based on
need, indicating a problem with the latter.

In short, they have no idea where the problem actually exists, but look
over there! Shiny new technology!

They can't plan for that. It would show the folly/dishonesty of charging
GA the "cost of services provided".

One of the other arguments they use is the disparity between corporate
jet taxes and fractional ownership or charter taxi taxes. What they fail
to consider is that, especially under fractional ownership, the costs
are defrayed amongst several individuals, whereas corporate jet
operation is undertaken entirely by one. They only consider the
per-plane taxation as relevant, when it patently is not.

It is this kind of statistical manipulation with which they have
convinced some that implementing heavy taxation on a small segment of
the flying community while relaxing that on the largest segment is the
best solution for all the ails of modern aviation. That's just not true.

It would be useful, though, to show what it would take to reduce ATC
service costs. For example, how low would traffic have to drop before
(for example) NY TRACON would be able to reduce staff by merging sectors?

Not very far, if their delay schema can be applied in reverse.

The problems that they are arguing against here are issues with the
hub-and-spoke system that the airlines implement to assuage their
logistics chains. It's a symptom of too many people concentrating their
usage on too few locations at the same time, not a problem of overall
inability of the system to compensate for global demand. They use
examples like peak time at O'Hare, without stopping to consider the
other 23 hours of the day, or alluding to flight distribution throughout
the day.

Their solution, then, is to use (very expensive) technology to cram more
flights in less space, so that the underlying problem of too many
flights trying to use the same airport at the same time can roll on, and
sneaking in a rather sizable bit of pork for their airline buddies to boot.

A real long-term solution is to:

A: Solicit Congress to get off their ass and fund the FAA properly.
B: Use those funds to build more airports or expand existing ones.
C: Provide financial incentives for the airlines to shift flights to
off-peak hours (distribute the load).
D: Update and maintain the underlying technology and facilities.
E: Provide tax incentives for using more "desirable" forms of aviation,
NOT by taxing operation, and NOT by taxing services, and NOT by
privatizing the whole system, but through point-of-sale and
registration. That way, the only ones discouraged are the intended
targets, not the whole community.

TheSmokingGnu

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:07:01 -0700, TheSmokingGnu wrote:


The proposals thus far presented try to make the case that it is the
former, caused in large part by the wide margins necessary in a
human-controlled and administrated system. Earlier however, the inference
is made that the proposed system will prevent a hypothetical "rationing"
situation wherein flights will be given priority based on need, indicating
a problem with the latter.

Right. That much I did see. I was wondering if you'd spotted something
different. But I'm going to go back and review exactly where you found
that math.

[...]

One of the other arguments they use is the disparity between corporate
jet taxes and fractional ownership or charter taxi taxes. What they fail
to consider is that, especially under fractional ownership, the costs
are defrayed amongst several individuals, whereas corporate jet
operation is undertaken entirely by one. They only consider the
per-plane taxation as relevant, when it patently is not.

Well, from an ATC service perspective they're right. However, there are
plenty of examples where pricing is dictated by more than just the
per-vehicle cost. As I read your paragraph above, for example, I
remembered that there's a high cost to registering a taxi in NYC. Still,
it's just another car. Why should it be charged differently?

[...]

It would be useful, though, to show what it would take to reduce ATC
service costs. For example, how low would traffic have to drop before
(for example) NY TRACON would be able to reduce staff by merging
sectors?

Not very far, if their delay schema can be applied in reverse.

I suspect you're right. But nobody is bothering to actually answer the
question? Pity.

[...]


Their solution, then, is to use (very expensive) technology to cram more
flights in less space, so that the underlying problem of too many
flights trying to use the same airport at the same time can roll on, and
sneaking in a rather sizable bit of pork for their airline buddies to
boot.

Well, yes, but they don't seem to be addressing the real limiting factor:
runway space (at those hubs).

[...]

and NOT by privatizing the whole system, but

One of the congressional testimonies I read (and cited here, though I
don't recall which just now) included the statement that privatizing was
(my words) a red herring, unrelated to the real issue but being put into
the mix anyway.

I have to add, though, that I do see problems with agencies that need to
be run well handled by political appointees. We don't need an "Ataboy
Brownie" running the FAA, for example.

But there's nothing that limits incompetence and abuse to government
agencies. And awarding non-competitive contracts (ie. FSS) seems to
offer little improvement.

- Andrew

I like Fred Thompson. He's the straighest talker on the horizon.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?

I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
Was it:

Kennedy? Nope
Johnson? Nope
Nixon? Nope
Ford? Yep - but he was appointed.
Carter? Yep -- but no one liked what he said.
Reagan? Yep -- but only if it was good news.
Bush I? Yep -- but booted after one term.
Clinton? Nope
Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.

As you can see, the straight talkers aren't very popular with the
unwashed masses. Perhaps it's because no one wants to hear the truth
from their leaders, preferring the smoothly reassuring upbeat tones of
Reagan over the lectures of Jimmy Carter?

I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
running for office in my life.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"