A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

If user fees go into effect I'm done



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old February 16th 07, 03:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:33:33 GMT, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
considering the hours and hard use they have endured.

Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
sheet design.


While that may be true, it overlooks the point, that Boeing has a
history of criminal behavior in dealing with government contracts, and
now it is proposing to install its automation system to control all
air traffic in the NAS via satellite. Those facts set off my
boondoggle detector.

While the concept is enormously attractive in its ability to nearly
completely automate air traffic control, there will be several new
vulnerabilities introduced unless they are addressed and resolved
BEFORE implementations of NextGen commences.

  #152  
Old February 16th 07, 12:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
B A R R Y[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

Viperdoc wrote:
You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
the current ones are based on 707's.


I thought they had a bunch of KC-10's?
  #153  
Old February 16th 07, 02:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Viperdoc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
are still active in commercial service? I think Fedex dumped all of their
10's a few years ago.

Still, flying in a 135 is a nice quiet ride. However, the airframes are
aging, and it is becoming more and more expensive to maintain them, to the
point where it may no longer be cost effective.


  #154  
Old February 16th 07, 03:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
B A R R Y[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

Viperdoc wrote:
The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
are still active in commercial service? I think Fedex dumped all of their
10's a few years ago.


Thanks.

I didn't know the KC-10's were that old, have recently seen one flying
t&g's @ McGuire. My father worked on 135's in the 60's, and we saw one
out of Pease at a recent airshow @ BAF.

FWIW, I know somebody who flies DC-10's for Gemini Air Cargo, so at
least _one_ is still flying.
  #155  
Old February 16th 07, 04:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
John Clear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 152
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

In article ,
Viperdoc wrote:
The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
are still active in commercial service? I think Fedex dumped all of their
10's a few years ago.


FedEx is working on converting their DC-10s to MD-10s, and currently
lists 86 DC-10/MD-10s in their fleet, as well as 58 MD-11s. An
MD-10 is a DC-10 retrofitted with an MD-11 two man cockpit, as well
as some other changes.

http://fedex.com/us/about/today/comp...ess/facts.html

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

  #156  
Old February 16th 07, 05:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
scott moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

Ron Lee wrote:
In todays AvWebFlash they state that the FAA proposal recommends
increasing the av gas tax from around 19-21 cents to 70 cents (US).
If their goal is to kill GA this is a step in the right direction.

Ron Lee


Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.

Which will increase the pressure for user fees.

And on and on and on.

Scott
  #157  
Old February 16th 07, 06:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Ray Andraka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

scott moore wrote:



Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.



Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.
  #158  
Old February 16th 07, 07:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done



scott moore wrote:
Ron Lee wrote:
In todays AvWebFlash they state that the FAA proposal recommends
increasing the av gas tax from around 19-21 cents to 70 cents (US).
If their goal is to kill GA this is a step in the right direction.

Ron Lee


Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.

Which will increase the pressure for user fees.



User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.


  #159  
Old February 16th 07, 07:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done



Ray Andraka wrote:
scott moore wrote:



Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.



Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.


All but a very few engines could run on mogas. Those that can't now
would need an electronic ignition. The few that never will are the high
HP turbo models, such as in the Navajo Chieftain.
  #160  
Old February 16th 07, 07:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

Newps wrote:


User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.



I would agree that is the case for a few years.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If user fees go into effect I'm done [email protected] Piloting 286 February 20th 07 02:02 AM
Trouble ahead over small plane fees AJ Piloting 90 April 15th 06 01:19 PM
What will user fees do to small towered airports Steve Foley Piloting 10 March 8th 06 03:13 PM
GA User fees Jose Piloting 48 December 24th 05 02:12 AM
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! Larry Dighera Piloting 9 January 23rd 04 12:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.