Dumb, off topic and political

Ok, I admit to making all three of these mistakes, but:

On "meet the press" one of the guests suggested that
Senator McCain was considered the most likely candidate
for Republican Nominee for 2008.

Would McCain, the presdent be able to carry out his
"final solution" of user fees for general aviation that
Senator McCain could not ?

In article ,
Scott Moore wrote:

[snip]
Would McCain, the presdent be able to carry out his
"final solution" of user fees for general aviation that
Senator McCain could not ?

Possibly, but I would think it wouldn't be high on the priority list.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Speaking of OT and political, your sig wouldn't be a veiled comment on
someone in the White House, would it? (:-))

vince norris

In article ,
vincent p. norris wrote:

Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Speaking of OT and political, your sig wouldn't be a veiled comment on
someone in the White House, would it? (:-))

nope.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Scott Moore wrote:
Ok, I admit to making all three of these mistakes, but:

On "meet the press" one of the guests suggested that
Senator McCain was considered the most likely candidate
for Republican Nominee for 2008.

Would McCain, the presdent be able to carry out his
"final solution" of user fees for general aviation that
Senator McCain could not ?

I'm still not convinced that this would be such an awful thing for us.
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

Granted, money is money is money, but this doesn't seem to me like
cause for yelling "Freedom!" and drawing swords. More importantly, I'm
concerned that unflinching opposition to change isn't exactly the best
position for our interests. Yes, GA represents a lot of individuals and
thus votes, but the larger corporate and especially airline interests
swing a much bigger... You get the idea.

Ultimately funding reform is the start of broader FAA reform, and
that's the fight we need to be ready for.

-cwk.

As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

In the United States, this would be ON TOP OF the taxes we already pay
on avgas. Well, where is THAT money going? And where will THIS money
go when, on top of the annual assessment, they decide that one should
pull out the MasterCard for a weather briefing?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 28 Aug 2005 17:52:13 -0700, wrote:

Scott Moore wrote:
Ok, I admit to making all three of these mistakes, but:

On "meet the press" one of the guests suggested that
Senator McCain was considered the most likely candidate
for Republican Nominee for 2008.

Would McCain, the presdent be able to carry out his
"final solution" of user fees for general aviation that
Senator McCain could not ?

I'm still not convinced that this would be such an awful thing for us.
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

We had that in the U.S. for a while during the 1970's. As I recall, a
172-class aircraft paid about $25/year in airspace use taxes, with a
weight-based component above about 2500 pounds GTW. The tax was
dropped because it was determined that the tax cost more to collect
than it generated in revenues.

RK Henry

The tax was
dropped because it was determined that the tax cost more to collect
than it generated in revenues.

This actually happened?

For real?

Heisenberg was right - anything can happen when you're not looking!

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
news
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

In the United States, this would be ON TOP OF the taxes we already pay on
avgas. Well, where is THAT money going? And where will THIS money go
when, on top of the annual assessment, they decide that one should pull
out the MasterCard for a weather briefing?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.

Mike
MU-21

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.


I'm all for eliminating FSS to save money.