The subsidies to GA are MASSIVE

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..

It is an Air Reserve base with heavy C5 activity. You can't do TnG's there
and the Metropolitan activity is small in comparison to C5 activity.


It's C-5, not C5.

Hi Steve.

I see you haven't changed at all...

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..

It is an Air Reserve base with heavy C5 activity. You can't do TnG's
there and the Metropolitan activity is small in comparison to C5
activity.


It's C-5, not C5.

"mike regish" wrote in message
...

Hi Steve.

I see you haven't changed at all...


No reason to.

Some pilots are Rembrandt's, others are Picasso's.

As a free artist, I don't belong to anyone.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

LOL!!!
Good one.

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"mike regish" wrote in message
...

Hi Steve.

I see you haven't changed at all...


No reason to.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Some pilots are Rembrandt's, others are Picasso's.

Which one do you belong to?

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Jay B" wrote in message
ps.com...

Skylune wrote:
No amount of actual data or reasoning will ever convince private pilots
that the paltry couple of hundred million dollars generated by AV gas
taxes per year doesn't cover the cost of the grants and FAA services
absorbed by GA.

For a group that likes to consider itself technical and
scientific-minded,
this is astonishing. (Well, actually not, based on the other nonsense
put
out by some GA groups on safety, cost, convenience, etc.)

Flying is not a science...it's an art.

:OP

Some pilots are Rembrandt's, others are Picasso's.

.... And some are Thomas Kincades.

Can't argue the facts?

LOL.

The subsidies are massive. I agree with the Bureau of Transportation
statistics study.

You, like the Destroyer, rely on rhetoric. Never quote any numbers, just
silly arguments. The subsidies are obvious, yet all sorts of convoluted
reasoning is used to deny the obvious: MASSIVE TAX SUBSIDIES to GA.
Many studies besides the BTS study have reached this conclusion. Only
advocacy groups, for obvious reasons, deny reality.

BTW, here is what a "professional pilot" thinks about GA:

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/e...index&-nothing

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Can't argue the facts?

Sure I can.

Your facts are wrong. ORH (the airport I'm most familiar with) is not a GA
airport, yet you insist on calling the grants there GA subsidies.


The subsidies are obvious, yet all sorts of convoluted
reasoning is used to deny the obvious: MASSIVE TAX SUBSIDIES to GA.


See above


Many studies besides the BTS study have reached this conclusion. Only
advocacy groups, for obvious reasons, deny reality.

So it's only reality when you decide?



BTW, here is what a "professional pilot" thinks about GA:


Couldn't care less.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

Can't argue the facts?

LOL.

The subsidies are massive. I agree with the Bureau of Transportation
statistics study.


It's a fact that you have yet to demonstrate a subsidy to GA. One must
conclude that's because there isn't any.