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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
"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?". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
"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... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |