Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:54:02 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in ::


If the private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.


It's difficult to envision a less costly and more equitable way of
collecting the revenue for ATC operation, than a tax on fuel.

I was talking more about the delivery of services costs than the
collection costs. I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you
know how high that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation
infrastructure? I don't, but I'll bet it would be several dollars a
gallon at least. I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of
the real cost of our aviation system (airports, ATC, navaids - we'd need
to pay our share of the cost of GPS for example) or I'd make an estimate
of the cost per gallon. I suspect the fuel consumption figures are
available with some research, but I doubt all of the costs of the rest
of the system area readily available.


Matt

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of
the real cost of our aviation system (airports, ATC, navaids - we'd need
to pay our share of the cost of GPS for example)

since I don't use GPS, my "fair share" would be zero.

Even if I used GPS for my bugsmasher, the cost to provide
regular ol' SPS GPS for my use is still zero.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you know how high that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation infrastructure? [...] I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of the real cost of our aviation system

Costs are only half the story. Benefits are the other half. There are
invisible benefits to the system (any system) which also need to be
figured in.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Whiting wrote:

I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you
know how high that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation
infrastructure?

If "big iron" suddenly ceased flying, much of that infrastructure could
simply disappear and we'd not only not care, we'd be pleased. What
percentage of operations out of Boston Center or NY TRACON are "small GA"?

WRT GPS, I'd be willing to pay a share if it costs were properly allocated.
The military is still the largest user, but let's not forget all those GPSs
in automobiles, hikers' backpacks, etc.

- Andrew

I'm not sure it is all that bad. I think if most "public" services were
provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in
aggregate for our money.

This can only be true where there is free competition and where the value is
measurable (if you die without healthcare, then its hard to measure its
value). Also, if the government must have the weather already (which it
must) then it is likely efficient for us all to have them dissemanate it.
How many of the private weather firms have there own satellites anyway?

The problem that many of us, me included,
don't like to accept is that aviation is not self-supporting and is
subsidized heavily from other revenue sources.

I have argued this myth a thousand times, and no one listens. It simply is
not provable given our system of other heavily subsidized activities being
involved. Pointing to the subsidies is not enough. You need to show that
it is MORE subsidized than other activities, as well as trace all the taxes
(monetary and regulatory) on it. I will be happy to cut my subsidy if we
can the rest as well. Let the poor beg the rich, and the food supply shrink
if that is what you want.

A private enterprise
wouldn't likely have this subsidy so the user costs would reflect the true
cost of the sytem and this likely would be ugly ... even if GA only had to
pay for the meager subset of services that it really needs.

I suppose if weather were off the budget, the TV stations would end up
paying for a lot of it. And the airlines would HAVE to have it. I suspect I
could get almost all I need for free anyway.

Most
GA airports simply couldn't survive without subsidies.


I am not too sure of that. The only thing GA airports HAVE to have is
protection from permanent closure. After all, if we want to be able to fly
someplace, there has to be a place to land SOMEWHERE near there. NIMBY's be
damned. Besides, the GA airports by definition have their ability to compete
taken away by the heavily subsidized airports the carriers use.

This argument won't be over until Delta and AMR start building their own
airports.

Since there are still successful privately owned airports I will chalk up
the need for subsidies to government inability to manage them without graft
and inefficiency.


I don't know if this is true for freeways or not, but I'm not sure they
are self supporting either if you consider the total costs, both capital
and expense to maintain them.


My point exactly! The only sure thing is that our taxes are being spent on
lots of things we don't individually care for.

It all comes down to what is less costly, the waste in government or the
profit margin that a private enterprise would require. If the private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.


This is true but the problem is measuring the costs and benefits. It's not
easy. Weather has national security value and therefore must be predicted
at least somewhat well. To my knowledge, all weather services are using
some of the NWS resources at this time. I could be wrong, but this tells me
we don't know well if a free market in weather prediction is profitably
sustainable. It could be that we are unwilling to pay for the amount of
accuracy which the government requires.


Matt

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:


I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of
the real cost of our aviation system (airports, ATC, navaids - we'd need
to pay our share of the cost of GPS for example)


since I don't use GPS, my "fair share" would be zero.

Even if I used GPS for my bugsmasher, the cost to provide
regular ol' SPS GPS for my use is still zero.

How do you see that? Somebody has to pay for the satellites. Sure the
military needs them anyway, but if this was all private enterprise, then
you'd pay for your fair share of the use.


Matt

Jose wrote:

I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you know how high
that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation
infrastructure? [...] I don't know where to get an accurate
assessment of the real cost of our aviation system


Costs are only half the story. Benefits are the other half. There are
invisible benefits to the system (any system) which also need to be
figured in.

Such as?

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

I think if most "public" services were
provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in
aggregate for our money.

I disagree. I remember when the Weather Station first came out, they had very
frequent local reports and paging of text weather of various cities every 20
minutes or so. Also had some aviation weather, as I recall.

Then they started attracting advertisers. The pilot weather was gone the next
time I saw a report. By 1995, the local cable companies had replaced the local
weather reports with their own ads. TWS corrected that a few years later by
announcing that the local weather would be displayed every 10 minutes (on the
8s). That forced the cable companies to play it.

Basically, if you need something special and are perceived to be a minority,
private enterprise will cut you right out of the picture. If weather info is
provided only by private enterprise, we won't have pilot weather unless
something like AOPA provides it for us.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Larry Dighera wrote:

It's difficult to envision a less costly and more equitable way of
collecting the revenue for ATC operation, than a tax on fuel.

True. The problem as I see it is the amount necessary. IIRC, AOPA stated that
the fuel taxes pay about 15% of the cost of the pilot weather system? That means
that we would have to increase this tax nearly 600% to pay the weather bills.

The last time I saw a breakdown of the fuel costs was a Raleigh years ago, but,
IIRC the Federal tax was a little less than 13 cents a gallon. If I'm
remembering all this correctly, we'd have to increase the tax to at least $.86 a
gallon to pay for the weather service.

Right now, Old Bridge is charging $3.45/gallon for gas. Regular auto gas is
$2.07 down the street. If 100LL jumps to $4.18/gallon (more than twice the cost
of car gas), I think quite a few more aircraft owners would opt for auto gas
STCs. That, in turn, would require another increase in fuel taxes, since fewer
gallons would be sold.

Wish I could say that I also see a solution.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Costs [of public infrastructure] are only half the story. Benefits are the other half. There are invisible benefits to the system (any system) which also need to be figured in.


Such as?

I'm not going to answer specifically, because I can't prove them. They
are hidden - that's what hidden means. But consider the following.

Where I live we recently discussed (with great heat) attracting
corporations to move into our town so that we would get a bigger tax
base. The more taxes paid by corporations, the less we'd have to pay in
property tax. The arithmetic is quite simple and very compelling. It's
also wrong. However, while we can all speculate as to why, it is
virtually impossible to prove. The only verifiable numbers are the tax
rolls, and they clearly show that corporations would pay tax that would
otherwise have to be paid by homeowners.

Nonetheless, looking at neighboring towns and graphing the mil rate
(homeowner tax rate) against the corporate percentage, those towns with
the highest corprorate presence have the highest mil rate. They have
the highest traffic density, the worst schools (schools are supported by
corporate and property tax), the highest prices in the stores... stuff
like that. The reason (I speculate) has to do with the impact of the
corporations on daily life - more cars parking, more roads to be built,
slower speeds, everything takes longer, wealthier people move out...
things like this that don't show up on the balance sheet.

I have no children, but it benefits me to have a good school system.
I'll leave you to figure out why (and it has nothing to do with my
screen name). Therefore, there is a benefit to non-users of the school
system.

The benefits to reliable mail service, reliable transportation (air and
otherwise), reliable telecommunications, extend to people who walk to
the store, don't have a phone, and burn all their mail. It means that
when I walk to the store, they will have what I want. OK, that makes me
an indirect user, but there are lots of indirect users of infrastructure
that are not tracked, but benefit from it.

We all benefit from our water system (unusual in the world in that even
our wash water is potable) because it reduces disease, even if I don't
use water from the system. It is not just the people with the tap that
benefit.

Street lighting could be seen as benefitting the drivers, and so should
be paid by the drivers. However in reducing accidents it also reduces
my health insurance premiums, and it reduces robberies to boot. These
are "invisible" benefits which accrue to non-drivers.

It's little things like this that add up all over the place, just like
little costs also add up all over the place, that make a strict "user
pay" accounting problematic.

Jose

--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.