Trouble ahead over small plane fees

"Skylune" wrote:
Dylan Smith wrote:
Meanwhile, when airlines need to use GA (for things like training)
they send their students abroad to dodge the fees they lobbied for

I.e. like outsourcing to India, the commercials ship training to
where it is cheapest. In this case, the USA, because of the
artificially low cost created by the subsidies. See below BTS study,
esp pp. 10-13.


http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...pdf/entire.pdf

It uses passenger-miles as the normalizing factor, and on page 14 it states
the following:

"Comparing modes that have dramatically different average trip lengths,
subsidy per passenger-mile may overstate the subsidy for modes with short
trip lengths and understate subsidy for modes with long trip lengths."

Take a look at the source material for the aviation information:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/c...2097.03.19.pdf

Tables 1-2 and 2-1 show that the complete elimination of GA flights would
reduce FAA expenditures by only about 12%. That's right - support of non-GA
flights eat up about 88% of the FAAs fiscal resources. That study made
clear that "In general, the air carrier share of FAA program costs has been
increasing over time, while general aviation (GA) and the public sector
shares have been decreasing."