GA paying fair (fare?) share

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

So what would be equitable?

A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
fuel tax....


What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal cost of
providing services to you?

I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft runways either
but we use them. This whole 'aviating thing' started off with folks giving
rides from fields and now we have 7xx's and Airbus, etc. moving people
around.

The problem is with the (poor) allocation and waste of tax dollars. Don't
get me started on the liability nonsense of these lawsuits.

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

So what would be equitable?

A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
fuel tax....



What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal cost of
providing services to you?


I'd need access to the direct costs, personnel costs, as well as the
manner in which ATC allocates its "productivity" and measures
performance. Without them, I'd be picking a number out of the air. One
ironic way of looking at it would involve me flying at night and maybe
being the only target in the sector.. ATC isnt busy at all, but I'm
receiving 100% of their attention (in theory only) where if there are 25
targets, the controller is much more busy, but each target is only
recieving 4% of the attention/service (VERY bad and flawed example, but
illustrates the difference. You dont pay a higher toll at midnight cause
you are the only car on the road, so you are the only one the guy in the
toll booth can "bill" for his time)

I think a sliding scale based on weight would be the most appropriate -
it accounts for frieght as well as passengers. Again, without specific
numbers, and a lot of time to crunch em, this is beyond me. I would
probably be willing to pay an additional $5-10 for local flights and and
additional $20-50 for longer cross countries.. these are rough figures I
just pulled out of the air that seemed reasonable for me to utilize
services. If I didnt use them, I wouldnt expect to pay the fees.

In a direct answer to your question.. I havent reached a firm decision
yet on what I think my share is of the costs of the NAS.

Dave

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message
...

I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft
runways either but we use them.


Of course we use them; they're there. If GA didn't exist those 10,000'
runways would still be needed to serve the airlines. If the airlines didn't
exist those 10,000' runways wouldn't exist.

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

I'd need access to the direct costs, personnel costs, as well as the
manner in which ATC allocates its "productivity" and measures
performance. Without them, I'd be picking a number out of the air. One
ironic way of looking at it would involve me flying at night and maybe
being the only target in the sector.. ATC isnt busy at all, but I'm
receiving 100% of their attention (in theory only)


If you weren't there, if there were no targets in the sector, would the
costs change?



where if there are 25
targets, the controller is much more busy, but each target is only
recieving 4% of the attention/service


Do the costs change now that there are 25 targets in the sector, everything
else being equal?



I think a sliding scale based on weight would be the most appropriate -
it accounts for frieght as well as passengers.


It's pretty much that way now, at least indirectly. Heavier aircraft burn
more fuel and thus pay more fuel tax. Heavier aircraft pay more in landing
fees.



Again, without specific
numbers, and a lot of time to crunch em, this is beyond me. I would
probably be willing to pay an additional $5-10 for local flights and and
additional $20-50 for longer cross countries.. these are rough figures I
just pulled out of the air that seemed reasonable for me to utilize
services. If I didnt use them, I wouldnt expect to pay the fees.

In a direct answer to your question.. I havent reached a firm decision
yet on what I think my share is of the costs of the NAS.


Without specific numbers nobody is in a position to say GA isn't paying it's
fair share now.

Without specific numbers nobody is in a position to say GA isn't paying it's
fair share now.


NOR can anybody assert that we ARE paying our fair share. Your assertion
is valid from both points of view.

Dave

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

NOR can anybody assert that we ARE paying our fair share. Your assertion
is valid from both points of view.


That's true. But the assertion that we ARE paying our fair share is being
made in response to the assertion that we are not. Let those that made the
first assertion be the first to present their evidence.

I figure if we only had the ATC necessary for GA, and the scheduled planes
had to use that, then there would be no towers at most of what are now class
C airports. Also, the class B airports would easily get by as class C, or
even D.

Yes, we use those towers for free, but if the towers were not there, it
would not cost us so much in fuel and insurance that we would go broke.
Now, lets say a Delta 737 has to enter the traffic pattern whenever the
field is VFR...

They would be unable to function. We don't piggyback off of their ATC
infrastructure because we NEED it. THEY NEED IT. I could fly IFR all over
using a CTAF like system to announce my presence on the airways, and on
approaches. The reason I cannot is because of THEM.

We put up a class B to keep ME away from THEM when I am not IFR. Now they
count it as me using ATC service everytime I leave my airport. My use of
the system is mostly for THEIR benefit.

The whole system is designed around THEIR needs, not ours.



"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
could just about throw up.

Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

How do you figure that?

I say that each user or group of users should pay taxes and fees that are in
line with what they actually need to use. I use very little that I am not
mandated to use.

Fuel taxes are one way to go, because there is a likely correlation with
fuel use and system use. Though it is hardly perfect.

If they were whining for us to pay our fair share, that would be fine. That
is not what they are whining about. They are whining about how much they
pay, and they are whining about seeing much of their business go away to
small bizjets.

There has been evidence that the airlines are being milked by the overall
local, state, and federal taxation. I would support less taxes on airline
travel, but they are not getting my support with this ridiculous tact. If
there were no airlines, GA would use much LESS ATC than we do now.

Also, the airlines presently do not train pilots from the time they are
students. How will new pro pilots get trained if they shift the cost of ATC
to the flight schools?





"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...
So what would be equitable?

A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a TOTAL free
ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable. We (as GA) have
been getting a hell of a deal, in my mind.

On the other hand.. paying 50 bucks for a flight briefing and another 50
for flight following for me in a spam can would be prohibitive in the
long run (since i flight follow on almost every flight out of the
pattern).

Dave


Dude wrote:

Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
could just about throw up.

Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

Let's see how well they can compete with the charters if they start
having
to fly right traffic while announcing their position when the tower goes
away.

Exactly my point.

Another way to look at the situation would be to see what happened if you
took the government out of it altogether.

You and I would fly around, mostly VFR, or maybe we would have to pay to use
an IFR service from a private company that was likely started to service the
airlines. Or, we could take the risk and fly IFR all on our own.

The Airlines would HAVE to have this service. We could use it or not. Then
they would have to fly around US. They would likely tell the service to
service us for free JUST TO GET US OUT OF THEIR WAY! Airports would be
privately owned, and the really big long runways would cost a lot to use, or
maybe they would cost nothing if you bought fuel there. At any rate, if
they tried to charge some guy in his Mooney a $100 landing fee, he would
take his business elsewhere. Which would be fine. Or, the airlines could
have their own airports, which would be fine (except they would have to be
in the middle of nowhere because only a government can build an airport near
a city full of NIMBY's).

Only when the government is involved does the whole idea of fair share come
up (and get perverted).

Their argument is based on the idea that they are an equal player in the
system, but that is a false premise. The system is designed mostly for
THEIR safe use, not ours.

If you start with a FAIR and EQUAL system, then publicly owned Class B
airports could not turn me away because I was not a scheduled airliner and
they were too busy. Nope, if it were fair and equal, it would be first come
first serve. They ask us and need us to use ATC for their purposes, and now
they want us to pay for the privilege.

In otherwords, they want us out of THEIR sky.




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

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message
...

I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft
runways either but we use them.


Of course we use them; they're there. If GA didn't exist those 10,000'
runways would still be needed to serve the airlines. If the airlines
didn't
exist those 10,000' runways wouldn't exist.