On Mon, 09 May 2005 18:45:26 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in adOfe.6049$EC6.1415@trndny06::

Larry Dighera wrote:
I hope this isn't a 'divide and conquer scenario. First implement
user fees for airlines only, then once the fee structure is in place,
add GA to those paying user fees.

Do you seriously think there's any doubt that will happen?

If the FAA revenue source if tied to fuel purchases, it will be more
difficult for airlines to squeeze GA out.

Of course it's divide
and conquer. The airlines are harping now (with very little real ammunition)
that GA isn't paying its way and they are. Once this goes in, they will be able
to "prove" that's true with very little (if any) slanting.

The 200% to 300% expansion in air traffic expected in the next decade
or two will not be a result of GA growth, and it shouldn't be funded
by additional taxes on GA.

The airlines will use this exemption to argue that GA should be excluded from
"their" airports, and some politicians will be able to make political hay by
"correcting" this "inequity." From what I know about people in New Jersey, there
will be a strong public outcry to quit using "their" tax money to support those
"rich" people flying all those "noisy little airplanes."

That's why, if ATC privatization should take place, there should not
be an exemption for GA; the revenue to fund ATC should be tied to fuel
sales so that those who use it the most and demand its expansion are
paying for it.

We'll wind up being banned from major airports *and* have to pay user fees on
top of that.

With the landing fees currently in effect at many large metro'
airports, GA is already effectively banned from their use.