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
  #41  
Old February 10th 07, 06:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
news

The US is a direct democracy?


No, it is a representative democracy, unfortunately.



The US government cannot ignore what the people want?


The US government does so regularly.


  #42  
Old February 10th 07, 06:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

Blueskies writes:

Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.


Monopolies should always be under government control for this reason.

The different between a Flight Watch with fees and one without is that the
former is paid for exclusively by the people who use it, whereas the latter is
paid for by everyone, whether they use it or not. The former is bad for
pilots, the latter is bad for taxpayers generally.

It's often difficult to find a balance between the population that pays for a
service and the population that uses it. The biggest problems arise when the
two populations are mutually exclusive (cf. Welfare).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  #43  
Old February 10th 07, 07:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

I didn't know the United States had 300 million ministers.


It doesn't.

Shut up . Oh really this is silly, you are using a very creative mix
of constantly shifting standards and equivocations to defend your
nationalist prejudices, without ever substantiating any of them. I
suggest you give up, it doesn't work.


If it didn't work, you wouldn't be so upset. The truth hurts.

If I had "nationalist prejudices," I wouldn't be living abroad. I just call
them as I see them. And some of what I see isn't the least bit flattering to
Europeans, I'm afraid.

A class means: A set of people who have a different perspective and
different interests than others sets of people.


A class is a group of people with different privileges, obligations, rights,
and status. Classes are thick on the ground in Europe, where everyone knows
his station and dares not stray outside of his social circle. But they are
rare in the U.S.

No it doesn't. There are few countries in Europe who have nobles or
royals at all; someone who claims to know so much about the continent
ought to know such an important fact.


Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monacco, the
Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Vatican all
have monarchies and royals, and some have nobles as well.

And the few countries who do have them do so mostly for fun, not
for political functions.


They have them because they cannot bear the thought of all people being
treated equitably as individuals. That's where Europe and the U.S. part ways.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  #44  
Old February 10th 07, 07:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

What things provided as government services are superior to things provided
by private providers motivated by the potential for profit?


Just about every monopoly service is superior in quality when provided by the
government.

A profit motive can work to improve quality and efficiency and lower costs
when there is competition at work and these things are necessary to retain
business. But when there is no competition, the profit motive works in
exactly the opposite way, destroying quality and efficiency and raising costs
through the roof.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  #45  
Old February 10th 07, 07:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I would much rather let Flight Watch die
and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
of Flight Watch.


How should the charges be structured for a service providing data the government
produces?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

  #46  
Old February 10th 07, 07:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

How should the charges be structured for a service providing data the
government
produces?


How are they structured now?


  #47  
Old February 10th 07, 07:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default If user fees go into effect I'm done


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

Shut up . Oh really this is silly, you are using a very creative mix
of constantly shifting standards and equivocations to defend your
nationalist prejudices, without ever substantiating any of them. I
suggest you give up, it doesn't work.

But it is working, right to a tee, for a troll's plans.

It has your replying; how many times now? That is the goal.

He has openly admitted that he is a troll, and here to stir up trouble.

Why not be part of the solution? Don't respond, no matter how much his post
needs to be rebutted.

That goes for everyone, but there are two many here that have no self
control, or have diarrhea of the mouth, or keyboard.
--
Jim in NC

  #48  
Old February 10th 07, 07:38 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

Blueskies wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "Blueskies" wrote in message
: . net...
:
: Yea, sure, for a FEE!
:
:
: Yes. Is that a problem?
:
:


So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service, and replace it with a privatized service for a
fee. Yes, that is the problem...



First, you can get your briefing for free on the ground. Second,
the inflight wx is provided by commercial services that compete
with each other, not by a monolithic FAA service. This is a far
better deal than we will ever get from the government, even if
they privatize it (which just creates yet another monopoly).

Scott
  #49  
Old February 10th 07, 07:42 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

Blueskies wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "Blueskies" wrote in message
: . net...
:
: So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
: and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
: problem...
:
:
: Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
: consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
: it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
: and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
: compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
: of Flight Watch.
:
:

Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.



And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
reads web pages to you.

The government would have got round to giving you satellite delivered
weather and graphics, certainly by 2040 at the latest.

By the way, all of that graphical weather comes from Nexrad radar, an
expensive and advanced system YOU paid to build. How much progress has
the FAA or NOAA made in getting that information to you in the cockpit?
(without commercial help)

Scott
  #50  
Old February 10th 07, 07:52 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

Judah wrote:
"Chris" wrote in news:535rlaF1qs7rdU1
@mid.individual.net:

Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html


It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...


2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.

Then 2,000 lbs.

Then 1,000 lbs.

Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
restricted to unpopulated areas only.

Scott
 




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 03:02 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 04:13 PM
GA User fees Jose Piloting 48 December 24th 05 03:12 AM
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! Larry Dighera Piloting 9 January 23rd 04 01:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 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.