If user fees go into effect I'm done

On 9 Feb 2007 08:46:30 -0800, wrote in
.com:

All I have to say about user fees is that if they are implemented

The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.
Fortunately there was enough 'stink' raised to expose, not only the
attempt to extort federal funds to keep Boeing's assembly line
operational, but the underlying criminal conduct of several Boeing
executives and DOD personnel.

Educate yourself about the proposed removal of congressional FAA
budget oversight and other aspects of the ATC privatization proposal.
Then write your federal representatives and lobby hard and long
against the ATC privatization boondoggle. Don't neglect to emphasize
the potential hazard to the public such a move will impose on airline
passengers, the enormous cost to tax payers at a time of record
federal expenditures, and the already brain-dead security and
logistics of airline travel.

ATC privatization is just another move supported by large corporate
interests and the current administration to raid the federal treasury
and further restrict our citizens' constitutional rights. The day of
reckoning is nigh; look at the public exposure of the misuse of
federal funds by contractors in Iraq (Halliburton/Blackwater,
contractors charging the government ten times the legitimate cost to
perform and taking kickbacks....). Look for a groundswell movement to
reform federal spending and corruption.

Ours is a government of the PEOPLE, by the People, and for the PEOPLE,
and corporations are not PEOPLE; expose their greedy exploits at every
opportunity, or resign yourself to enslavement through inaction.

[rec.aviation.ifr, rec.aviation.student added]

--

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be
ruled by evil men." -- Plato


A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the
public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses
over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two
hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following
sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to
great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from
complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back
to bondage."
-- Alexander Tyler - Circa 1780 - discussing the fall of the
Athenian Democracy.


"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government." -- Patrick Henry

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.

fyi - 767

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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.

fyi - 767


And, Boeing didn't initially propose it. The AF wanted them, didn't have
the money, and asked "How would a private sector company do something like
this?".

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.

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

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

"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...

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...

Behind that nose is a very large camel.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in
t:

Behind that nose is a very large camel.

The nose came in 1919. Head and neck - 1926. Front legs - 1940.

We're getting pretty close to the hind quarter's here, and I think there's
already too much momentum to stop the camel completely.

As a pragmatic, the best that I can hope for is that us little guys can still
afford to fly. Quite frankly, I have less sympathy for corporate Gulfstreams
who use the system more than I do, weigh enough to make a difference on the
runways, and probably are a more legitimate subject of the airline's
complaint.

In general, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to more clearly define
GA as two classes - light single engines / twin aircraft and corporate /
charter Jets.

Most of the complaints of the public and airlines regarding security threats
and tax advantages hold a different set of arguments with respect to the
larger aircraft.

One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap, move out
and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.

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

scott moore wrote in
:

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.

Cessna 172s, Beech Bonanzas, and even Beech Barons pose a different threat
and a different cost than King Airs, Pilati, Citations and Gulfstreams.

Personal flying poses a different threat and cost than Corporate and
Charter.

Already there is differentiation - look at landing fees. They are based on
class, engine count, and weight. Quite frankly, if someone is personally
flying a Pilatus or King Air, he may find himself with a bit of the short
end of the stick here, but he also is flying a King Air or a Pilatus, and
probably can handle the difference.

I would love to believe that can win this 'war' and avert user fees
altogether. But my pragmatism or cynicism or whatever has led me to the
conclusion that even if we divert this attack, the enemy will keep on
coming. Seeing that it's a reality in Europe certainly dispells any
illusions I may have had.

In my opinion, the best we can hope for is that the public is smart enough
to recognize that we little folk are not worth the effort and leave us
alone.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure we'll get that much.

scott moore writes:

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.

At least someone understands how it works. But most people won't.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.