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

On Sep 13, 2:38 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
me wrote:
[snip]
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 listedhttp://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/se_56_30AUG2007.pdfand it looks like it seldom
averages more than 2 IFR operations per hourhttp://flightaware.com/analysis/graphs/airport.rvt?airport=KDED.

It was just approved last year. Engineering and planning are going
on now. Not sure they even have an announced opening date.


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

Well, I'm not commenting upon all of GA. The comment was made
that
GA jets would "get along fine" without ATC and I think for the true
business jet traffic that just isn't true.

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?

Neil



I don't condone bigots, but there is evidence, at least in other areas,
of standard being lowered so that minority races and women could be
promoted in certain positions or to permit them entry into certain
educational institutions in order to meet a quota.

me wrote:


Well, I'm not commenting upon all of GA. The comment was made
that
GA jets would "get along fine" without ATC and I think for the true
business jet traffic that just isn't true.

If it wasn't for concern over running all the airlines up there ATC wouldn't
be needed or what was needed could be paid for out of FAA petty cash.

There are 5 or 6 jets based at my home field (ELD) plus there is almost
always at least one out of town jet on the ramp during the week and we have
5 commuter airline flights per day. No one has ever even thought of it being
a towered airport. And it looks like we have many more IFR operations than
DED http://flightaware.com/analysis/grap...t?airport=KELD

Now, you may have a TON of none IFR ops and the jet guys bullied through a
tower to deal with that.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:07:35 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

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.

It is if you're not used to it.


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.



If the government could collect the taxes they have now, they wouldn't
need to have more

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:22:41 -0400, NotPC
wrote:


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



I agree on your statement about white males but here is the
problem. IF? you say that "Person" (Who happens to be a
Black Female) is unqualified or incompetent and it comes
from a white male manager they will most of the time scream
racism and bigot like you have. It will prevent
accountability and most likely they will be "Accommodated"
or promoted into a higher level of incompetency(See FAA
Management)

Because all the guys like you give them all the ammunition they need
to do so?


The "White Male" does not have that luxury of being shielded
by the PC Police. If the white male is incompetent or
unqualified, he will most likely be removed, demoted, or
fired. He has no minority status to shield his HR position.

That concept is difficult to explain or understand by PC

Which don't even exist anywhere, of course, except in your midget
mind. Never met one in my life.


robots like you. IAW, you are most likely a bigot toward
white males and have been brainwashed to "Kiss the Black
Ass" and ignore or circumvent or accommodate incompetent
minorities in the work place.

Most likely he is a normal human being instead of one like you with
their bigoted heads planted right up their fat asses.


Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners

Racial bigots-morons with no manners


BTW, Is it OK to call you a bigot toward white males?

Wouldn't make any difference since everyone just laughs at idiots like
you anyway

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
me wrote:


Well, I'm not commenting upon all of GA. The comment was made
that
GA jets would "get along fine" without ATC and I think for the true
business jet traffic that just isn't true.

If it wasn't for concern over running all the airlines up there ATC
wouldn't be needed or what was needed could be paid for out of FAA petty
cash.

Thanks...I needed a good laugh!!

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:19:11 -0700, mrtravel wrote:

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?

Neil



I don't condone bigots, but there is evidence, at least in other areas,
of standard being lowered so that minority races and women could be
promoted in certain positions or to permit them entry into certain
educational institutions in order to meet a quota.

That's called affirmative action and is true, but that doesn't make
them incompetent or dangerous as this moron is saying

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:47:54 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:


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.

Do you not even read what you respond to?

The post from Allen above shows you that the Jet Fuel Tax for GA is
$0.218/gal. The same fuel used by Airlines is $0.043/gal.



Yeah. That's why I said they pay whatever the tax is. I didn't
realize from his desciption that only the $0.43 tax was the only tax
airlines paid, though (it is actually $0.44). Who pays the second
tax? I thought that was airlines as well, but apparently not.

You need to put the decimal point in the correct spot - $.044 (four and
four-tenths cents) per gallon for airlines. The segment and ticket tax is
collected from the passengers, not paid by the airlines.

Here is the link to the table I posted:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/trust_fund/ the link to the
spreadsheet is in the first paragraph.

--
*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

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.

And it is because of the AIRLINE traffic at those airports that ATC is
needed there. GA is less than 5% of the operations at these airports. It
is not GA that wants to have 59 operations at ORD from 8 PM to 8:14 PM
every day. It is the airlines.


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?

Because the majors are in a panic over the VLJ and fractional jets.
The potential of the VLJ to siphon off the first & business class
customers, which is where the profit is, terrifies the majors. This whole
fee talk is about how to price these flights out of the market so the
premium customers will continue to fly with the airlines.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

John Kulp wrote:


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.

It is if you're not used to it.


Well it has been there for years so the only folks that aren't used to it
are those that don't fly on airlines in the USA.



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.



If the government could collect the taxes they have now, they wouldn't
need to have more