If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote: The big issue for AOPA and NBAA is allocating the costs. It costs the same to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747. Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25 year old Narco Mk 12A. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news:2T66b.274022$Oz4.73182@rwcrnsc54... Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25 year old Narco Mk 12A. How are we being charged, by the mile? by the minute? By controller mic time? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news:KO66b.274013$Oz4.73064@rwcrnsc54... Chip Jones wrote: Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to use ATC service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and fly willy nilly around Canada without talking to ATC? They are a lot like us. One exception that will never fly here is that they are required to file and open a VFR flight plan for any flight over 25 miles. You don't *have* to file a flight plan for such flights. You can instead file a 'flight itinerary', or, less formally, leave the information with a 'responsible person' who will report you missing if you don't show up where you're supposed to be. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely be
charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage of the gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say 0.001.. Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD to KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds... (actually it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's gross revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes) Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route... Gross revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00 Seems fair to me... Denny " It costs the same to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747. Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172. The airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner) wants to keep it the same as it is now. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Newps wrote:
Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25 year old Narco Mk 12A. Are separation requirements the same for the 'Hawk and the 747? Given that the 747 covers more ground per sweep, does that play a role? - Andrew |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Collection will eventually be relagated to the infamous "EZ-PASS". You fly
low, under the transponder and your account is debited the amount of the landing fee. If your account shows insufficient funds to pay any fee, a giant fly swatter will appear, guided by the "giant hand" (actually the same one that steered industry, but it is currently laid off), and it will swat your ass into oblivion. Tom "Tom S." wrote in message ... "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Rick Durden wrote: So long as ATC services are paid for via gasoline tax, things have worked very well. Not only that, but the cost of collection is negligible. As a conservative estimate, the cost of collecting user fees will triple the current expense of ATC (the cost of collecting tolls on the NJ toll roads is over 80% of the total cost of that system). Must be like the Chicago tollroads, where the tolls that were going to be done in ten years are now into their 40th year. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Pretty tough to see how you could keep the 172 farther from the 747 than the
747 is from the 172. Mike MU-2 "Andrew Gideon" wrote in message ... Newps wrote: Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25 year old Narco Mk 12A. Are separation requirements the same for the 'Hawk and the 747? Given that the 747 covers more ground per sweep, does that play a role? - Andrew |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Why should the charge for the same service be different for different
customers? Mike MU-2 "Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ... ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely be charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage of the gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say 0.001.. Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD to KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds... (actually it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's gross revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes) Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route... Gross revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00 Seems fair to me... Denny " It costs the same to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747. Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172. The airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner) wants to keep it the same as it is now. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Because price is set more directly by value to the consumer than by cost to
the producer-- free enterprise 101. Cheers, John Clonts Temple, Texas "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message .net... Why should the charge for the same service be different for different customers? Mike MU-2 "Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ... ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely be charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage of the gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say 0.001.. Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD to KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds... (actually it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's gross revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes) Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route... Gross revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00 Seems fair to me... Denny " It costs the same to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747. Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172. The airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner) wants to keep it the same as it is now. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to funding ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there would be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be afraid of privatization. The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a system funding issue. Whatever entity provides ATC in the system will have the system users by the short hairs. Funding will be had because the system users won't have a choice other than pay to play. Likewise, whatever entity provides ATC in the system will employ air traffic controllers. The Canadian controllers even got a raise when NavCanada was chartered. The issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job security. The issue for American controllers is that we don't trust a for-profit private entity to properly staff and run an ATC enterprise with a "safety above all" corporate attitude. Hell, we hardly trust FAA, and FAA actually *does* have a "safety above all" corporate attitude. We know that a contractor will be in the game to make money, and that staffing levels, salaries and equipment costs will all eat at the profits. Not good for us. We fear that privatization will place us into an environment where the contractor pushes us to cut major safety corners (you know, in the name of "efficiency") and then when people get hurt or airplanes get too close, the poor SOB working the sector will get fired for "poor job performance" rather than the contractor getting sacked for putting the controller in that situation and the people in the airplanes in that situation. Skyguard here we come... Chip, ZTL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|