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

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:28:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:50:43 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:

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?

They are paying for the services they are using. Most of the
infrastructure is there because of the airlines and their
passengers. All those little airplanes and even the CEO jets that
are flying around can and do function quite well without much less.



Well, the issue as I understand it is user fees, not fuel tax. The
argument is that GA doesn't pay these and all the airline passengers
do. Is that not the case?

The airlines pay a lesser fuel tax and per segment tax. GA doesn't pay a per
segment tax but this is made up for with a higher per gal fuel tax.



Nothing confusing about all this is there?

John Kulp wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:22:02 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:


OK and GA pays 19.3 cents for avgas and 21.8 cents for jet fuel.
Everybody pays the .1 cent for the LUSTF. Just to be clear 4.4 21.9



So, then, the airlines do not pay the 21.8 cent tax?

No they pay 4.4 cents.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:40:39 -0400, NotPC
wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
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.

Ditto for you on the moron and closed minded part

Yeah, I sure am close minded about moron bigots like you alright.

John Kulp wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:28:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:50:43 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:

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?

They are paying for the services they are using. Most of the
infrastructure is there because of the airlines and their
passengers. All those little airplanes and even the CEO jets that
are flying around can and do function quite well without much less.



Well, the issue as I understand it is user fees, not fuel tax. The
argument is that GA doesn't pay these and all the airline passengers
do. Is that not the case?

The airlines pay a lesser fuel tax and per segment tax. GA doesn't
pay a per segment tax but this is made up for with a higher per gal
fuel tax.



Nothing confusing about all this is there?

No not really. It has worked for YEARS. It allows the airlines to pass on a
cost directly to their passengers without a whole lot of trouble because it
is a /pax tax.

If you think that is confusing take a look at the plans for GA user fees and
try to imagine how that tax would be collected.

Recently, NotPC posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, NotPC posted:

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.
[...]
The failure to see that the promotion of
minorities and women into some key safety positions within
the FAA was a mistake.

Perhaps you can explain the difference between these remarks, and
how they are not bigotted?


If you identify or expose a minority in a safety job who is
unqualified does that automatically make you a bigot?

It does, if you think their lack of qualifications has anything to do with
their status as a minority.

Are we so blinded by political correctness that we can't
say "Hey, that Black Female is unqualified"? Is that now taboo?

No, it's just ignorant, and exposes the speaker as a bigot. For example,
would you say, "Hey, that White Male is unqualified"? Would you think that
the white male's incompetence is a result of his being a white male?

I understand that these concepts are difficult for some people to grasp,
but it really is not about being PC.

Neil

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

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

Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.

Exactly.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

On Sep 13, 9:29 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote:
[snip]
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.

An airport 'round these parts just went controlled because of the
number of GA jets that requested it. It was over the objections of
many of the actual more frequent users (VFR mostly). I suspect
that the portion of the GA traffic being discussed (business jets)
wouldn't "get along just fine" without some large amount of ATC.

me wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:29 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote:
[snip]
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.

An airport 'round these parts just went controlled because of the
number of GA jets that requested it. It was over the objections of
many of the actual more frequent users (VFR mostly). I suspect
that the portion of the GA traffic being discussed (business jets)
wouldn't "get along just fine" without some large amount of ATC.


That doesn't change the fact that airline traffic needs the ATC system WAY
more than the GA traffic does. What airport are you talking about?

On Sep 13, 2:09 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
me wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:29 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote:
[snip]
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.

An airport 'round these parts just went controlled because of the
number of GA jets that requested it. It was over the objections of
many of the actual more frequent users (VFR mostly). I suspect
that the portion of the GA traffic being discussed (business jets)
wouldn't "get along just fine" without some large amount of ATC.

That doesn't change the fact that airline traffic needs the ATC system WAY
more than the GA traffic does.

Of the traffic being discussed, I'd suspect that is not true. Not
sure
how to prove it however. For GA in general, I'd suspect the vast
majority
would PREFER no ATC.

What airport are you talking about

DED

me wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:09 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
me wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:29 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote:
[snip]
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.

An airport 'round these parts just went controlled because of the
number of GA jets that requested it. It was over the objections of
many of the actual more frequent users (VFR mostly). I suspect
that the portion of the GA traffic being discussed (business jets)
wouldn't "get along just fine" without some large amount of ATC.

That doesn't change the fact that airline traffic needs the ATC
system WAY more than the GA traffic does.

Of the traffic being discussed, I'd suspect that is not true. Not
sure
how to prove it however. For GA in general, I'd suspect the vast
majority
would PREFER no ATC.

What airport are you talking about

DED


The current AFD shows that Daytona handles approach and departure and
there's no tower freq listed
http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/se_56_30AUG2007.pdf and it looks like it seldom
averages more than 2 IFR operations per hour
http://flightaware.com/analysis/grap...t?airport=KDED.

But all that aside. Do you really think that the incremental cost to the ATC
system for the services provided to a Cessna Citation III are really over
$24/hour? If not then GA is paying it's fair share because the ATC system is
primarily there because of the airlines. Others use it because it is there.