User fees in Obama's budget proposal

spiderweb said:
and to you haters out there, just remember that user fees were suggested during Mr. Bush's admin.
Click to expand...
Ben, I ask you to retract that statement. That indicates a huge lack of class. Because I or anyone is opposed to an increase in taxation by a government that already is grossly inefficient is not indicative of hate.

As for Bush, I was as opposed to user fees then as I am now. I was opposed to the incredible growth (under Bush) in government then as I am now, particularly with the build-up of DHS. I'm sure you have no idea how that department has created a hell for flight schools trying to conduct normal business of flight training. I won't even get into the process of establishing visas and approval for international flight students.
 
KennyFlys said:
Ben, I ask you to retract that statement. That indicates a huge lack of class. Because I or anyone is opposed to an increase in taxation by a government that already is grossly inefficient is not indicative of hate.

As for Bush, I was as opposed to user fees then as I am now. I was opposed to the incredible growth (under Bush) in government then as I am now, particularly with the build-up of DHS. I'm sure you have no idea how that department has created a hell for flight schools trying to conduct normal business of flight training. I won't even get into the process of establishing visas and approval for international flight students.
Click to expand...

OK, I retract the word "haters" as it applies to the people on this board. :D I have just had a few run-ins with some people recently who really should aptly be called haters, and I guess the bad taste lingers on.

Like I say, I am an ardent supporter of Obama, but yes I do oppose user fees. I just don't see a way out of it when many other countries have been there for so long. I'll pay them though, as long as the airlines and everyone else is paying, too; and if it will help. we all have to pitch in, in my view. :)
 
spiderweb said:
OK, I retract the word "haters" as it applies to the people on this board. :D I have just had a few run-ins with some people recently who really should aptly be called haters, and I guess the bad taste lingers on.

Like I say, I am an ardent supporter of Obama, but yes I do oppose user fees. I just don't see a way out of it when many other countries have been there for so long. I'll pay them though, as long as the airlines and everyone else is paying, too; and if it will help. we all have to pitch in, in my view. :)
Click to expand...
Thanks Ben.
 
Local paper carried a story today that "in order to save time" the president has decided to "let the earmarks slide" in the $410 billion spending bill. His spokesman dismissed this abrupt turn-about in Obama's avowed position regarding a veto of any earmarked bill because "this bill in last year's business."

Seems to me airplane prices should start going through the roof pretty soon. Did everybody get their new one bought while prices were low?
 
wabower said:
Local paper carried a story today that "in order to save time" the president has decided to "let the earmarks slide" in the $410 billion spending bill. His spokesman dismissed this abrupt turn-about in Obama's avowed position regarding a veto of any earmarked bill because "this bill in last year's business."

Seems to me airplane prices should start going through the roof pretty soon. Did everybody get their new one bought while prices were low?
Click to expand...
I just posted the detailed earmark database for FY2009 in the SZ if you are interested that is where it should be discussed. Both parties took about an equal share. But if you figure that out per party representative then you will come up with a fascinating result. That is that one party takes far more per person than the other party.
 
Here are some of the earmarks for airport improvements

$475,000 Akron-Canton Airport, Runway 5/23 Safety Area, OH
$1,187,500 Akutan, AK
$1,757,500 Alliance Airport, Runway Extension, TX
$950,000 Amery Municipal Airport, Repave Taxiway and Ramp, Amery, WI
$712,500 Atlantic City International Airport, Fire Command Center Relocation, NJ
$1,140,000 Atmore Municipal Airport, Various Improvements, AL
$1,900,000 Battle Creek Unlimited, MI
$950,000 Bemidji Regional Airport Terminal and Fire Facility Improvements, MN
$475,000 Blue Ridge Airport, Relocation of Access Road and Expansion of Apron, Martinsville, VA
$475,000 Buffalo Niagara International Airport, Construct Taxiway S, Buffalo, NY
$1,543,750 Burlington International, VT
$855,000 Burlington-Alamance County Regional Airport, Runway Improvements, NC
$722,000 Cecil Reid, Northeast Apron and Taxiways, FL
$1,187,500 Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, Relocate and Reconstruct Taxiway, TN
$950,000 Chippewa Valley Regional, WI
$475,000 City of Montezuma Airport, Land Acquisition and Runway Improvements, GA
$475,000 Clinton Memorial, MO
$1,235,000 Cuyahoga County Airport, Runway Rehabilitation and Various Improvements, OH $1,235,000 DeKalb/Taylor Municipal Airport, Various Improvements, IL
$570,000 Denton Municipal Airport, Various Improvements, TX
$1,187,500 Denver International Airport, Various Runway and Taxiway Improvements, CO
$475,000 Des Moines International Airport, Runway 13R/31L Land Acquisition, IA
$950,000 Edward F. Knapp Airport, Runway Improvements, VT
$855,000 Farmington Airport, Parallel Taxiway, MO
$712,500 Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport, Extension of Runway 1, Glenn Falls, NY
$817,000 Fort Wayne International Airport, Runway 5-23 Shoulder Reconstruction, IN
$142,500 French Valley Airport, Feasibility Study, CA
$475,000 Garfield County Regional Airport, Runway Improvements, CO
$712,500 George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Noise Mitigation, TX
$34,200 Glasgow Municipal Airport, Public Safety Building, KY
$755,250 Glynn County Airport, Taxiway, Lighting and Drainage Improvements, GA
$1,425,000 Golden Triangle Regional, MS
$285,000 Grand Forks International, ND
$2,256,250 Gulfport-Biloxi International, Taxiway and Runway Construction and Rehabilitation, MS
$950,000 Holmes County Airport Runway Extension and Various Improvements, OH
$1,781,250 Jackson-Evers International Airport, Runway, Taxiway and Various Improvements, MS
$1,615,000 Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport, Terminal Project, MI
$950,000 LO. Simenstad Municipal Airport, Runway Improvements, Osceola, WI
$1,995,000 Louisville International Airport, Various Capacity and Safety Improvements, KY
$1,140,000 Madison County Executive Airport Authority, AL
$142,500 Menominee-Marinette Twin County Airport, Deicing Truck, Ground Power Unit, MI
$1,900,000 Mobile Regional, AL
$1,401,250 Monroe Regional Airport, New Terminal, LA
$380,000 Montgomery County Airport, Runway 3-21 Rehabilitation, NC
$475,000 Montgomery Regional Airport, Rehabilitation of Runway 10/28, AL
$950,000 Mt. Washington Regional, NH
$712,500 Nashville International, TN
$475,000 New River Valley Airport, Pave and Rehabilitate Runway 624, Dublin, VA
$950,000 Oakland County International Airport, Runway and Taxiway Improvements, MI
$688,750 Ohio University Airport, Various Improvements, OH
$1,662,500 Oneida County Airport. Various Improvements, NY
$1,045,000 Outagamie County Airport, Terminal Expansion, WI
$475,000 Oxford-Henderson Airport Authority, Runway Expansion and Capital Investment Program, NC $736,250 Pangborn Memorial Airport, Terminal Expansion, WA
$712,500 Paulding County Airport, Various Improvements, GA
$475,000 Pellston Regional Airport, Snow Removal Equipment, Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Facility, MI
$950,000 Peoria Regional, IL
$2,375,000 Philadelphia International, PA
$950,000 Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, High Speed Taxiway Connector H-5, AZ
$1,900,000 Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, Taxiway R Reconstruction, AZ
$950,000 Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Taxiway B Expansion, AZ
$950,000 Piedmont Triad International, NC
$47,500 Rountree Field Airport, Perimeter Wildlife and Security Fencing, Hartselle, AL
$1,900,000 Rowan County, NC
$926,250 Rutherford County-Marchman Field, Taxiway and Ramp Improvements, NC
$1,187,500 San Antonio International Airport, Various Airfield Improvements, TX
$2,850,000 San Marcos Airport Improvements, TX
$712,500 Sandusky City Airport, Runway and Taxiway Improvements, MI
$546,250 Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, Taxiway, Lighting and Signage Improvements, GA $2,612,500 Springfield-Branson National, MO
$831,250 St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, Terminal Improvements, FL
$475,000 Stanly County Airport, Ramp and Runway Improvements, NC
$712,500 Tunica Municipal, MS
$712,500 Union City Everett Stewart Airport, Runway Extension, TN
$722,000 W.K. Kellogg Airport, New Parallel Runway, MI
$1,187,500 Waterbury/Oxford Airport, Implementation of Noise Remediation, (Part 150 Study), CT $142,500 West Houston Airport, Automatic Weather Observation System, TX
$4,275,000 West Virginia Statewide, WV
$1,900,000 Williston Sloulin Field International Airport, Rehabilitation and Expansion of Runway, ND
 
Last edited:
Earmarks for FAA R&D

$475,000 Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures
$2,375,000 Advanced Materials Performance Research, National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS
$712,500 Center for Runway Safety Systems, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
 
Last edited:
Earmarks for Air Terminal improvements

$17,000,000 Abilene, TX
$2,000,000 Baltimore, MD
$1,100,000 Champaign, IL
$50,000,000 Cleveland, OH
$2,000,000 Columbia, SC
$624,105 Dayton, OH
$5,049,000 Ft. Lauderdale, FL
$250,000 Greenwood Airport Tower Construction, MS
$5,093,612 Islip, NY
$894,000 Kalamazoo, MI
$9,476,557 LaGuardia, NY
$9,907,534 Las Vegas, NV
$60,000 Medford, OR
$4,580,072 Memphis, TN
$1,405,696 Pensacola, FL
$500,000 Replace Nantucket Airport Control Tower, MA
$500,000 San Francisco, CA
$11,174,900 Traverse City, MI
 
Last edited:
I just thought it was interesting that the "no earmarks" pledge lasted less than 6 weeks. And if it means I have to ever go to the SZ again, just pull the plug on my participation on this forum now.

smigaldi said:
I just posted the detailed earmark database for FY2009 in the SZ if you are interested that is where it should be discussed. Both parties took about an equal share. But if you figure that out per party representative then you will come up with a fascinating result. That is that one party takes far more per person than the other party.
Click to expand...
 
> and to you haters out there, just remember that user fees were suggested
> during Mr. Bush's admin.

The first time I knew of an administration pushing user fees was early in the Clinton administration.

Does anyone have information on an earlier administration advocating user fees?
 
if all of GA went away, exactly how much money would the FAA save?
Click to expand...
But this doesn't necessarily answer the question, though GA does like to make the argument "well, all that stuff was put there for the airlines, and we're just a flea on the system's back, so we shouldn't have to pay for it".

For comparison, if motorcycles all went away, how much would that save in highway spending? Probably nothing. But highways do need to exist, and motorcyclists take advantage of their existence, and so it's reasonable that they should incur a share of the cost, even if they aren't, in themselves, causing an increase in expenses.

So even if the FAA's spending didn't change at all with the disappearance of GA, there would still be a reasonable argument that since GA uses some share of the facilities, it should pony up a share of the costs.

The difficult part is in determining what that share is. It is true, of course, that some FAA facilities simply aren't used by GA at all, and some aren't used by airlines at all, so the hard part is determining how the "shared" facilities are shared.

Complicating this is the argument that facilities are "sized" to meet airline demands, and so even if GA piggybacks onto those facilities, it shouldn't necessarily pay a proportion of the costs based on usage. This would be similar to a motorcyclist saying "well, these highway lanes are paved this wide to accommodate cars, we don't need such wide lanes, and shouldn't have to pay for them".
-harry
 
wabower said:
I just thought it was interesting that the "no earmarks" pledge lasted less than 6 weeks. And if it means I have to ever go to the SZ again, just pull the plug on my participation on this forum now.
Click to expand...
Talk to your Congressional Representatives. They are the ones that put them in the budget. Congress has the authority to make the budget. You can always tell them you do not want money. But looking at that list I think it safe to say that a lot of our flying is courtesy of budget earmarks.
 
smigaldi said:
Talk to your Congressional Representatives. They are the ones that put them in the budget. Congress has the authority to make the budget. You can always tell them you do not want money.
Click to expand...

You funny.

I live in a district where the guy's campaign slogan is "He Delivers."

I'm one of the half dozen or so registered to the other party.
 
dmccormack said:
You funny.

I live in a district where the guy's campaign slogan is "He Delivers."

I'm one of the half dozen or so registered to the other party.
Click to expand...
Congress told the WH to back off on the whole the earmark reform issue. Congress knows the way to endear themselves to us, the voting public, is to bring home money into the district. Earmarks are as American as apple pie.
 
smigaldi said:
I think it safe to say that a lot of our flying is courtesy of budget earmarks.
Click to expand...

Flying itself is a gift of government investment -- unless you want to buzz around in a Wright Flyer (on second thought....ok, I'm a Libertarian!)

(Of course the Wright's used investments from the German and French governments to improve the Flyer).

WW1? WW2? Cold War? DARPA?

And so on.

Consider just about any function or component of aviation and trace it back and you'll find a military or regulatory connection.

Of course Uncle Sam didn't fund Newton and Bernoulli or Langewiesche.

Uncle Sam didn't even fund gravity, lift, drag, or thrust.

But he's certainly helped make them usable.
 
dmccormack said:
Flying itself is a gift of government investment -- unless you want to buzz around in a Wright Flyer (on second thought....ok, I'm a Libertarian!)

(Of course the Wright's used investments from the German and French governments to improve the Flyer).

WW1? WW2? Cold War? DARPA?

And so on.

Consider just about any function or component of aviation and trace it back and you'll find a military or regulatory connection.

Of course Uncle Sam didn't fund Newton and Bernoulli or Langewiesche.

Uncle Sam didn't even fund gravity, lift, drag, or thrust.

But he's certainly helped make them usable.
Click to expand...

So true - and well put.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
But you're not opposed to an increase in the fuel tax to be no longer subsidized by the taxpayers, then?
Click to expand...
Until the federal government and the legislature starts making responsible use of other people's money, I'm opposed to ALL fees and taxes.

We'll see that happen when pigs fly.
 
Bob Noel said:
> and to you haters out there, just remember that user fees were suggested
> during Mr. Bush's admin.

The first time I knew of an administration pushing user fees was early in the Clinton administration..
Click to expand...

Right..by one Senator John S. McCain.
 
smigaldi said:
Good to hear you guys moved you operation to a privately built and owned airport and that you never use the ATC system. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You seemed to have missed my earlier posts and my point. Everyone who works at and uses this airport pays taxes and the fees currently charged. NO MORE is deserved, least of all by the federal government.

Again, read my statement two posts back as well as early yesterday regarding government waste. Why do I want to contribute to this further? These fees and increase in fuel taxes will not be revenue neutral under the guise of GA taking over more costs from the airlines.

Secondly, I think many who do not use ATC services on a daily basis are under a pipe dream. They need to live at an airport and watch the operations of how it all works on a continual basis. At Austin alone, GA takes up very little of ATC's time. Between state, local and federal taxes, EVERYONE is contributing all they should be.

Given the current state of government waste on at all levels, one has to be stupid as all hell to want to pay more money to any government, particularly the feds.

Amazingly, it's those with the constant liberal slant here who seem to push these fees or increased taxes. If you want to pay more, knock yourself out. But, stay the hell out of my pocket.

And, before anyone claims Bush was in favor of user fees, keep in mind... Bush was not a fiscal conservative.
 
KennyFlys said:
You seemed to have missed my earlier posts and my point. Everyone who works at and uses this airport pays taxes and the fees currently charged. NO MORE is deserved, least of all by the federal government.
Click to expand...

Says you, even though it's been proven you're not paying your way! You pay some, but not enough.

Again, read my statement two posts back as well as early yesterday regarding government waste. Why do I want to contribute to this further? These fees and increase in fuel taxes will not be revenue neutral under the guise of GA taking over more costs from the airlines.
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Secondly, I think many who do not use ATC services on a daily basis are under a pipe dream. They need to live at an airport and watch the operations of how it all works on a continual basis. At Austin alone, GA takes up very little of ATC's time.
Click to expand...

But you take up some of ATC's time and don't pay enough for the time you do use! It's like grabbing and eating a handful of grapes at the grocery store and saying, "Meh, it's just a few, and they're selling them in big bunches, anyway, so it's no big deal."

Between state, local and federal taxes, EVERYONE is contributing all they should be.
Click to expand...

That's the problem - everyone! Everyone is paying, not the people using! How hard is that to understand? You can try to ignore the facts all you want but it doesn't make it true.

Given the current state of government waste on at all levels...
Click to expand...

Like subsidizing flight instructors? :rolleyes:


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Like subsidizing flight instructors? :rolleyes:


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Now that's disingenuous.

A "subsidy" is cash provided by government to an entity to meet the shortfall between revenue and costs.

See Amtrak (and pretty much every bank any more....)

Just because I ride down a road on a bike doesn't mean my ride has been "subsidized."
 
dmccormack said:
Just because I ride down a road on a bike doesn't mean my ride has been "subsidized."
Click to expand...
Both are tax subsidies. Because you derive a benefit from being a citizen aka tax payer your use of government supported functions is considered subsidized via a government infrastructure subsidy.

Far too often people think they are paying their own way, but mostly we are deriving a benefit from each other via what we all pay.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Both are tax subsidies. Because you derive a benefit form being a citizen aka tax payer your use of government supported function is considered subsidized via a government infrastructure subsidy.

Far too often people think they are paying their own way, but mostly we are deriving a benefit form each other via what we all pay.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but it upsets people to say so.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Says you, even though it's been proven you're not paying your way! You pay some, but not enough.
Click to expand...
Nothing of the kind has been proved. Can you show me where my takeoff and departure has huge cost in a facility that exist to provide services to commercial traffic and IFR general aviation traffic?

That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Click to expand...
I went through this once, already. If I'm now charged user fees, where is it written the fees on airlines passed on to their customers is going to be reduced? I don't see it. In fact, I'm betting those fees will be just as high and will continue to go to those charging them.

By the way, those fees on the ticket which are enumerated, just what do you think they are for? They aren't for ATC use.

But you take up some of ATC's time and don't pay enough for the time you do use! It's like grabbing and eating a handful of grapes at the grocery store and saying, "Meh, it's just a few, and they're selling them in big bunches, anyway, so it's no big deal."
Click to expand...
Go back to my earlier statement in this post.

That's the problem - everyone! Everyone is paying, not the people using! How hard is that to understand? You can try to ignore the facts all you want but it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
Yes, everyone is ALREADY paying. And, they're paying enough! I'm not ignoring any fact. I said this federal government is a wasteful government and dang if I'm going to be in favor of giving it more money to blow on needless functions. Like I said, you give them your money but stay the hell out of my pocket and others who wish to keep their money.

Like subsidizing flight instructors? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You are doing an excellent job of proving yourself an ass.

This whole user fee scheme is nothing more than a means of putting more money into federal coffers. It isn't going to relieve anyone else of their existing obligations. It's not going to create a revenue neutral scenario. Anyone who believes this with regard to government is living a pipe dream.

Over the last few months, this government has just passed or considering spending bills that total more than three trillion dollars. The funding isn't even in place to cover this expense. In the end, very few are going to benefit from this. I will not ever be in favor of this or any taxation as long as such nonsense continues to take place.
 
smigaldi said:
Both are tax subsidies. Because you derive a benefit form being a citizen aka tax payer your use of government supported function is considered subsidized via a government infrastructure subsidy.

Far too often people think they are paying their own way, but mostly we are deriving a benefit form each other via what we all pay.
Click to expand...

:mad2:

::sigh::

Calling a common benefit a "subsidy" is intentional obfuscation.

Words have meaning and a "subsidy" is not "common use."

Earlier I posted that we pilots have all derived great benefit from government investment in aviation techology.

But, that does not mean I am "accepting a subsidy" when I turn on a handheld GPS.

I am certainly benefiting from a government program -- but it's a program I and many others have contributed to.

The fact is, every one of us derives more benefit from the overall system (government and private) than we put in.

Stay with me here....

Consider how much a pair of shoes cost -- $80?

If you had to raise the cow, butcher the cow, tan the hide, cut the leather, assemble the shoe, etc etc etc... you have cost yourself much more than 80 bucks of your time.

(Adam Smith worked this whole thing out in a nice book published in 1776)

So in the same way, "We the people" pay for roads. Only a few us can afford to pay for one mile, let alone 3600 miles.

So we collectively pay for the road, we all benefit, and from the proceeds of the benefits we maintain and build new roads.

The problem with the "user bears all costs" plan is that "users" are not limited to drivers, for example.

The 80 year old lady that gets oxygen delivered relies and derives benefits from the road -- yet she isn't driving on it.

So the delivery company pays taxes, but in addition there is a common fund that pays for roads because roads are good for the municipal/county/state/national welfare -- not just the delivery company or granny.

(Factor into the "paying for roads" equation the original intent of the interstate highway system as a strategic resource in case of invasion).

So while the argument that "I don't take direct money from the government" is specious in that we all derive some benefit from government services (even the hermit relies on national defense), so is the counter specious that states, "everyone is feeding at the trough so there is no difference."

Yes there is.

Direct cash payments are subsidies. Common use is not a subsidy.
 
source please?
 
Direct cash payments are subsidies. Common use is not a subsidy.
Click to expand...
The idea that if a resource is potentially "commonly used", that it is ineligible to be considered government subsidized is patently false. If the government bought 10,000 Cirrus SR 22s, and offered free access to them to the public for "common use", and we took advantage of that offer, is there no way we could consider our flying to be subsidized by the government?

If I was paid $15/hr as a CFI, and paid all my required federal income taxes (probably somewhere around zero), am I fully "paid in to the system", and thus fully eligible for everything the government might ever decide to provide me with, secure in the knowledge that I have paid for it?
-harry
 
KennyFlys said:
Nothing of the kind has been proved. Can you show me where my takeoff and departure has huge cost in a facility that exist to provide services to commercial traffic and IFR general aviation traffic?
Click to expand...

Yes, I can:

The allocation found that GA drives approximately 16 percent of the costs of air traffic services. Nearly 10 percent is related to high performance GA aircraft such as corporate jets, while 6 percent is related to piston GA aircraft. These figures do not include flight service stations, which largely serve the GA community.
In contrast, GA currently contributes just over 3 percent of the taxes that flow into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsid=8747

I went through this once, already. If I'm now charged user fees, where is it written the fees on airlines passed on to their customers is going to be reduced? I don't see it. In fact, I'm betting those fees will be just as high and will continue to go to those charging them.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about airlines, we're talking about GA.

By the way, those fees on the ticket which are enumerated, just what do you think they are for? They aren't for ATC use.
Click to expand...

How wrong you are again, as usual. You never read this link, did you?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071163t.pdf


Yes, everyone is ALREADY paying. And, they're paying enough! I'm not ignoring any fact.
Click to expand...

Read slower this time (it's OK to move your lips if you need to):

The allocation found that GA drives approximately 16 percent of the costs of air traffic services. Nearly 10 percent is related to high performance GA aircraft such as corporate jets, while 6 percent is related to piston GA aircraft. These figures do not include flight service stations, which largely serve the GA community.
In contrast, GA currently contributes just over 3 percent of the taxes that flow into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.

You are doing an excellent job of proving yourself an ass.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl: As always, you're in the lead in that department! A really, really big lead...

This whole user fee scheme is nothing more than a means of putting more money into federal coffers. It isn't going to relieve anyone else of their existing obligations. It's not going to create a revenue neutral scenario. Anyone who believes this with regard to government is living a pipe dream.
Click to expand...


tin-foil-hat.jpg



Trapper John
 
John or whoever the hell you are (your secret identity remains so unlike most on this board), I'm tired of arguing with you. Pay all the taxes you want. I don't care. If you want to trust a report from the agency and government that wants these fees, go ahead. I don't care.

Meanwhile, I'll do my job and provide a service to those whom pay more than enough taxes. I'm done with you.
 
KennyFlys said:
I think many who do not use ATC services on a daily basis are under a pipe dream. They need to live at an airport and watch the operations of how it all works on a continual basis. At Austin alone, GA takes up very little of ATC's time.
Click to expand...

Airport Operational Statistics (KAUS)
Aircraft operations: avg 570/day[SIZE=-1] *[/SIZE]
46% commercial
36% transient general aviation
12% air taxi
3% military
2% local general aviation[SIZE=-1]
* for 12-month period ending 28 February 2007

According to Airnav it looks like 50% of the traffic at Austin is GA, and since KAUS is tower controlled, ATC needs to talk to all of them.
[/SIZE]
 
mantakos said:
The idea that if a resource is potentially "commonly used", that it is ineligible to be considered government subsidized is patently false. If the government bought 10,000 Cirrus SR 22s, and offered free access to them to the public for "common use", and we took advantage of that offer, is there no way we could consider our flying to be subsidized by the government?

If I was paid $15/hr as a CFI, and paid all my required federal income taxes (probably somewhere around zero), am I fully "paid in to the system", and thus fully eligible for everything the government might ever decide to provide me with, secure in the knowledge that I have paid for it?
-harry
Click to expand...

An absurd example.

Just in case you need help with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
 
An absurd example.
Click to expand...
So you don't see any parallels between an illustrative example where the government provides us with planes, and the real-life scenario where the government provides us with airports, navaids, and ATC?
Just in case you need help with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
Click to expand...
From that web page:
Infrastructure subsidies

Infrastructure subsidies may be used to refer to a form of indirect production subsidy, whereby the provision of infrastructure (at public expense) may effectively be useful for only a limited group of potential users, such as construction of roads at government expense for a single logging company. The implication is that those users or industries benefit disproportionately from the provision of that infrastructure, at the expense of taxpayers.
​
-harry
 
mantakos said:
So you don't see any parallels between an illustrative example where the government provides us with planes, and the real-life scenario where the government provides us with airports, navaids, and ATC?
From that web page:
Infrastructure subsidies

Infrastructure subsidies may be used to refer to a form of indirect production subsidy, whereby the provision of infrastructure (at public expense) may effectively be useful for only a limited group of potential users, such as construction of roads at government expense for a single logging company. The implication is that those users or industries benefit disproportionately from the provision of that infrastructure, at the expense of taxpayers.
​
-harry
Click to expand...

Pay attention.

I already decribed how the beneficiaries of an airport includes far more than pilots.

The example you quoted mentioned a road for a single logging company.

If an airport was built with government funds for a single company's use, that would be a subsidy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top