AOPA Mag This Month

"Morgans" wrote in message
news

"Dylan Smith" wrote

Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
owned.

A picture of a privately run train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains

I can only draw on my experience of England's rail service when I was
there in around '89 or '90, and say that the privatization of the rail was
detrimental, much like privatization has failed in other places, and types
of ventures.
--
Jim in NC

Thanks for your informed comment. Unfortunately the railways were not
privatised until 1994 so your experience was definitely not on a privatised
service.

As it is now, there are record numbers of people using newer and faster
trains than ever before.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message

The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

The AOPA should publish the data which shows how much the AV gas tax
contributes to the Trust Fund, but they'd rather spew rhetorical
nonsense (which unfortunately plays well with many politicians,
particularly those who are private pilots and/or rely on GA to fly
around for campaign efforts).

To counter Boyer's "education" efforts, various disparate groups
around the country are letting the pols know what the actual score is,
but it is hard to fight a highly organized special interest lobbying
group like the AOPA.

OK, LOON:

How about removing all subsidies from: Mass transit, railroads, bicycle
lanes, waterways, etc.?

Only then can we talk about the "massive subsidies" of GA.

Work it out on a per person movement,

"Borat" wrote

Thanks for your informed comment. Unfortunately the railways were not
privatised until 1994 so your experience was definitely not on a
privatised service.

As it is now, there are record numbers of people using newer and faster
trains than ever before.

I was replying to the fact that people in this group have commented that
trains in England are not as easy to use, or as good as they were in the
past.
--
Jim in NC

On 2007-04-05, Skylune wrote:
The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

One need only look at the explosion of experimental types (5000+ RVs
alone!) to see what *could* happen to GA if the FAA would get the hell
out of the way.

On 90% of my flights, I need ATC like I need an enema. On 5% of my
flights, I need them only because some silly rule *says* I do (when,
in fact, it would probably work better without them). On the
remaining 5%, I absolutely, positively need ATC.

So, I say reduce their budget by 95%. It won't affect me -- or tens
of thousands of pilots like me -- in the least.

Funny thing is, back in the good old days (when ATC and pilots were on
the same side), local controllers used to practically BEG us to use
flight following, because it helped their budgets.

Now I see we were only cutting our own throats by doing so. Now they
can point to statistics showing "all those little planes using flight
following" and use them as a justification to add users fees.

We were suckered.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2007-04-05, Skylune wrote:
The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

Its hard to believe that you really think that Dylan. Saying that Light GA
does not need ATC or the FAA is one way of getting excluded from them by the
airlines and then when they become the owner of the infrastructure will
charge through the nose to let light GA back in when Light GA realises that
some of the services were worthwhile.

I suspect that ATC spends as much time keeping CAT away from light GA as it
does keeping CAT apart. Improved technology like mode S and ADB-S is great
for the heavy end but giving like GA access to it just means that they end
up hanging around the same airspace as CAT and need separating.

Bring Class A airspace down to 5000' agl, that keeps the IFR traffic in one
area away from the VFR stuff below, the IFR stuff can pay for having
exclusive access to that airspace away from the poor trash VFR stuff who
have it for free.

On 2007-04-06, Borat wrote:
Its hard to believe that you really think that Dylan. Saying that Light GA
does not need ATC or the FAA is one way of getting excluded from them by the
airlines and then when they become the owner of the infrastructure will
charge through the nose to let light GA back in when Light GA realises that
some of the services were worthwhile.

You misread the intent of my message: the point is if airlines did not
exist, then the remainder of aviation could quite happily exist without
ATC or the FAA in most instances. ATC only came about because the
airlines exist. Now GA is being forced to pay for services that only
exist to make it possible for airlines to exist.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 3 Apr 2007 13:29:16 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
conclusions were the same as ours.

Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!

We're apparently on the cutting edge in this group, boys and girls,
and AOPA Pilot is tracking our collective stream of consciousness.
Watch next month for an article on "Tower-Induced Go-'rounds"!

Tis not at all uncommon for a question raised in a thread on one or
more of the aviation groups to show up in one of the aviation
magazines



:-)
---
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Apr 6, 3:17 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2007-04-05, Skylune wrote:

The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I'll try that same logic with my local toll highway authority. My
car's incremental cost
is 2 cents. Haaaaaa JG

In article .com,
wrote:

On Apr 6, 3:17 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2007-04-05, Skylune wrote:

The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I'll try that same logic with my local toll highway authority. My
car's incremental cost
is 2 cents. Haaaaaa JG

"jgrove"'s car does not impose incremental costs -- everything he does
is excremental.