CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

mrtravel wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

TMOliver wrote:

I don't know if the 40% is correct, but "executive jet a/c"
certainly receive a "free ride" from the current system.


Well a Citation CJ3 burns about 111 GPH at a tax rate of $0.219 that
works out to about $24.31 per hour. While not not outrageous it
isn't free.

Do the airlines also pay this fuel tax?

No they pay fuel tax at a MUCH lower level.

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote:

"The guys who fly around in private jets" make up about 40
percent of the air traffic in the Northeast, he said. "One would
think it's not just airlines that would be asked to reduce
capacity," he said.

Is this number correct?

Yes, and they don't pay anywhere near their fair share of fees
either.

Well that's certainly a matter for debate...

The vast majority of gen av traffic would operate just fine without
ATC at all. With the exception of a few airports that are commercial
hubs, and a couple like Teterboro that attract a bunch of CEO
flights.


Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control,
or departure control.

Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:08:38 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Allen" wrote

AVIATION FUEL
General Aviation Fuel Aviation gasoline: $0.193/gallon
Tax Jet fuel: $0.218/gallon
Commercial Fuel Tax $0.043/gallon

Wow! I didn't know that the airlines paid almost no tax on fuel. Do the
corporate jets get the same tax break, or do they pay the higher rate of
.s28 per gallon? From your post, I take that they do not. How about the
new light jet businesses that do the taxi type charters?

The airlines really have balls complaining about others not paying their
fair share, when they pay squat on fuel, and little on per seat taxes.
Typical of their powerful lobby.

It still ****es me off, though.
--

Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which is used for multiple purposes.
You don't tax industries for fuel per se, but all users of the
product. I don't think kerosene has every been taxed much, unlike
gas. Everyone pays whatever the tax is on this.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:30:32 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:



Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control,
or departure control.


Have heard of them and even use them at times. Unless you are IFR,
they are NOT needed at a vast majority of airports in the United States.
Most airports in the U.S. do not have a control tower, and many of those
who do do not have a 24 hour control tower. No local or ground
controllers. No ground control.

These aren't the airports that have much traffic or are the problem.
Those are major airports, which do have ATC.


Even IFR, unless you are in the area of major airports, you may very
well not have TRACON, ground, or local control. You take off with a
clearance void time obtained from an RCO or relayed by FSS and once at
sufficient altitude talk directly to the ARTCC for your location.

Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft. But
then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why, exactly,
are the majors talking about their customers paying almost all the
freight then?

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:45:17 -0400, NotPC
wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:04 -0400, NotPC
wrote:

Snip Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
the stupid bigots
with them at the same time.


I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks. There you
go twisting words. I said get rid of the UNQUALIFIED
Politically Correct appointees and Diversity experiments
gone horribly wrong in Federal Government(See FEMA and FAA).


Just CYA bull**** of a bigot. You capitalized blacks and women and it
doesn't take a genius to see all your bias with this continued
bull****.

CYA bull**** of a bigot. LOL!!
Keep looking at life through your soda straw
You are a sad example of a PC blinded sycophant

Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners

And you're just a complete moron as well as a bigot.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:01:47 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

True, but GPS is GPS. They all use the same satellites.

Yes, but GPS is useless for tracking, and that is by design.

Do you ever have one clue about what you're posting. See below:

A GPS tracking unit is a device that uses the Global Positioning
System to determine the precise location of a vehicle, person, or
other asset to which it is attached and to record the position of the
asset at regular intervals. The recorded location data can be stored
within the tracking unit, or it may be transmitted to a central
location data base, or internet-connected computer, using a cellular
(GPRS), radio, or satellite modem embedded in the unit. This allows
the asset's location to be displayed against a map backdrop either in
real-time or when analysing the track later, using customized
software.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:57:42 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

me writes:

Some have advocated that. Most folks don't agree that's the
solution. Virtually everyone involved in the system agree that the
primary problem is ATC's in ability to manage the available
resource.

Hire more controllers.


Right. Hire more controllers to man a system already at capacity.
That would do a lot alright.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:01:16 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

By flying different paths than now.

Without moving runways, that's going to be difficult.

Completely ridiculous. The problem is the runways are at capacity
GIVEN the ATC system/paths being used. Change the path to shorten the
paths and you increase capacity. Got that yet?


Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
can't track aircraft.

GPS is a receiver-only system. It provides guidance to the aircraft in which
it is installed. It provides nothing to anyone else, by design.

More complete nonsense. Go read the other post which actually tells
you what it does.


I have news for you. I was on an international
flight a while back and was talking to the relief pilot. He said the
US was the only country NOT using GPS and was totally outdated. So
how, then, do the flights get to where they're going?

What your pilot doesn't know is that the FMS in every aircraft (almost) uses
GPS as one of its navigation sources. The FMS uses GPS, VORs, ILS, ADF, and
potentially whatever else is on the aircraft for navigation. So the U.S. is
making heavy use of GPS.

Oh, so a long experience pilot with a major carrier who uses these
systems every day doesn't know what he's talking about but you do huh?
Right. It's apparent from virtually all your posts that you have no
clue what you're talking about.


Still, this has nothing to do with _tracking_ aircraft by GPS, which is not
possible.

Completely stupid comment as usual.


Ah, so you reduce shedules making them less convenient for the public,
force aircraft to buy and sell aircraft they don't want, etc. etc.
Brilliant.

As fuel dwindles and CO2 increases, it will certainly seem so, although I
rather consider it self-evident.

Self-evident to a complete idiot. Fuel isn't dwindling. There is
plenty of it. CO2 footprints of aircraft ARE dwindling with more fuel
efficient engines, wing tips, etc.etc. See 787.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:21:59 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:01:16 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

John Kulp writes:

By flying different paths than now.

Without moving runways, that's going to be difficult.

Go away and think about it.

One of your more stupid posts.

Couldn't agree more. If he could think, however, he wouldn't be
posting this idiocy in the first place.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:03:19 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Completely silly, of course. It's called redunancy.

Redundancy won't help in a deliberate attempt.

Whatever this means.


Check the web. Where you'll find out that 4 engined planes aren't
anywhere near as efficient as two engined. Have much less fuel
efficient engines,, etc.

They don't have to have four engines to be big, and they are certainly not 100
times less efficient.

I never said they were. As usual, no one understands whatever point
you are trying to make here.


Uuh. that was about 40 years ago ace when it was true.

So things change.

Well, you occasionally show you have a clue about something. Not much
though.