Better start your flight training soon...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still think the problems in the system as it currently operates are because of the airline over-saturation of a minimal number of airports. Limited resources spread too thinly + no allowances for the vagaries of weather = overloaded system.

Why the GA guys, corporate or flibs alike, should pay for the idiocy that is the current airline hub-and-spoke system, and the way that it overloads the ATC system is beyond me.
 
And I'm so sorry that my boss' time is too important to waste while the TSA schmucks confiscate his toothpaste, and that once he gets on the cattle car, the level of service he receives is equivalent to that of a prisoner in Rikers.

We recently made a transcon trip, carrying 6 people out and 7 people back. We left the east coast at 5 am, made a stop in Salina, KS (which, before take off, we were cleared direct to Palm Springs and up to FL230; I'd be willing to bet it is because there aren't a gaggle of RJs at Salina) and landed in SoCal at 8:30 am local. They made a 9:30 am meeting, had a full productive day, and then we headed south to another SoCal city at 7:30 pm that night. They were resting comfortably in the hotel by 9 pm. After a full night sleep, they woke up and went to another AM meeting, and we headed home at 3 pm. We were back on the east coast by 11:30 that evening. They all went home, got another good nights sleep, and reported into the office bright and early the next morning. The entire time on the airplane was spent discussing business strategies and various projects. Most of the executives are health conscious, and they were able to maintain their diet by ordering specific catering.

I don't think I need to outline the same itenerary on the airlines. Because A) it couldn't happen that efficiently and B) it would be a hell of a lot more frustrating and time consuming. It would surely be two full days of traveling on the airlines, and a good 2 hour drive down the California coast on the night after their first batch of meetings.
 
mikecweb said:
I don't owe Mark crap. If he gets his panties in a wad about that comment he'll tell me, he doesn't need you to speak for him. I however owe myself a break from the ridiculous cirlce jerk this place has become as of late. Too much heartburn over people i hope i never have to share a cockpit with....
Click to expand...

F'n A man - F'n A! Couldn't agree with you more.
 
Appreciate all those who responded to my counterpoints here and your views.

Though we agree to disagree.

Here is the thing though. User fees are coming. So instead of trying to fight them coming which they are no matter how much one writes on the internet how bad they are, try to influence their change to have the littlest impact as possible.

My thoughts.
 
Where's that dead-horse beating icon.

I'm having hallucinations of deja vu.... almost as if.... we've discussed (beaten) this before....

That or it's the sleep deprivation or the two finals and the papers and the article reports I had to turn in today.
 
mikecweb said:
Very disappointing Mark.
Seems like along with representation you've become nothing but an ALPA talking head who forgot where he came from.
What a shame.
Click to expand...


I know exactly where I came from. Just because I don't agree with your viewpoint, why does that make me a disappointment?
 
MQAAord said:
Where's that dead-horse beating icon.

I'm having hallucinations of deja vu.... almost as if.... we've discussed (beaten) this before....
Click to expand...


YEP! That is the point. They are coming so fight on how they are changed, not how to try to prevent them.
 
Seggy said:
Here is the thing though. User fees are coming. So instead of trying to fight them coming which they are no matter how much one writes on the internet how bad they are, try to influence their change to have the littlest impact as possible.
Click to expand...

I think that we've successfully rid the world of the LASP absurdity for a good while; I don't see why it isn't possible to fend off user fees as well.
 
Seggy said:
YEP! That is the point. They are coming so fight on how they are changed, not how to try to prevent them.
Click to expand...

It's not written in stone, Seggy. It doesn't have to be that way.

"The south is seceding, it's going to happen, so we just have to try to make it happen in the best possible way!" Hmm, nope, that didn't happen quite like that...

We don't have to roll over and take anything.
 
MQAAord said:
It's not written in stone, Seggy. It doesn't have to be that way.

"The south is seceding, it's going to happen, so we just have to try to make it happen in the best possible way!" Hmm, nope, south didn't secede....

We don't have to roll over and take anything.
Click to expand...

Would user fees be acceptable if minimal charges are imparted on training flights and aircraft under a certain MGTW? There seems to be a doom and gloom paranoia concerning the devastating effects of user fees. If vulnerable areas of the GA community are protected with its implementation, can we arrive at a compromise and accept its as part of our airspace system?

P.S. This clip is for those alluding to the dangers of the US becoming like Sweden


<table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" width="360"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">M - Th 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2">The Stockholm Syndrome</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;">thedailyshow.com</td></tr><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:225113" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" height="301" width="360"></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;">Daily Show
Full Episodes</td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;">Economic Crisis</td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;">Political Humor</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
 
This was before my time but had a very good briefing on the age 65 rule issue from the FEDEX MEC Chair who is leaving. There are a lot of correlations between user fees and the age 65 battle.

The government really had no choice but to change the rule from 60 to 65 in order not to be kicked out of ICAO. Because the membership of ALPA was opposed to the change, originally they fought tooth and nail to prevent it. When they finally realized that it WAS going to be changed, NO MATTER what they did, ALPA had to make sure when it was changed there were safeguards in there with retirement benefits, and other financial issues to the members so they were not forced to work past when they wanted to. ALPA almost screwed the pooch on that one. If they continued fighting what in the end was going to be a loosing battle, they would have been REALLY screwed when pilots were forced to work till 65.

User fees are a losing battle...

THEY ARE COMING!!!!!!!

So, if AOPA and the NBAA want to continue fighting against the change, then that is well within their right. However, by doing so MIGHT screw over general aviation MORE instead of actively lobbying HOW the rules for user fees are put in place.
 
Seggy said:
THEY ARE COMING!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Says you and what army? If we want to fight, that's our right as American's. If you want to fight for user fee's, that's your right as an American. What leads you to believe that user fee's would fix the alleged airspace problem? The only thing user fee's are going to do is create a massive loss in jobs, from aircraft manufactures to flight instructors to A&P's to FBO employee's. User fee's are going to drastically reduce the use of GA. Sure makes sense to put even more people on the street, when everyone and their brother is pushing for ideas to employ more people.

I guess I fail to see how you can see that they 100% are coming? Must be nice to have a time machine.
 
I'm all for a good fight. That is your right and encourage you to do so.

However, if Bush and Obama who are pretty much complete opposites agree that user fees should be implemented, and had plans to do so, then I would say they are going to be.
 
I honestly will take a middle of the road approach on the implementation of user fees. User fees and its implementation will help fund continuous improvements in our NAS and help provide quality service to those who use it. We need the voices of those vehemently against the idea in this battle though to make sure GA does not get the shaft when it comes to its implementation. Keep on fighting :D
 
Velocipede said:
Well, if you KNEW anything about airspace management, you'd know the airspace around NYC knits ALL the airports together. So what happens at JFK, LGA and EWR is also effected by TEB, HPN and all the GA airports in the area. So, the answer to your smartass question is...plenty.




Sure it will help. Get the FLAPS out of the NAS. Come out and fly a couple days around SNA. If you had more experience on a national/international level, you'd understand that. I would think you'd have some inkling even with your limited experience.
Click to expand...

Give me a break... no matter what you seem to think, delays and problems with overcapacity around the NE have NOTHING to do with GA. I HAVE flown in that area enough to see this.

As far as SNA, that is a key example to further prove my point. In the Orange County area, there is only one airport that is served by the airlines and is the only airport with any sort of traffic problem. Take for example FUL. all GA, not one problem with delays or congestion. Throw the airlines into the mix and it all goes to hell. not saying that the airlines should not be there, but i am saying that there is no reason that they should have any sort of priority when it comes to using the NAS.

If the local governments weren't so anti-aviation, they should have moved the airlines over to the former El Torro MCAS. Instead they feel that airplanes are too much of a nuisance and permanently closed an airport with 5 runways over 10,000 feet relegating all airline service to the area to an airport with 2 runways, the longest being only 5700 feet. Obviously SNA was not built to accommodate the 757's that fly in and out of there. Again, the issue is too many airlines serving a single airport causing delays.

But, hey the airlines pay more than their fair share right? nobody else has the same rights as these big corporations... give me a break.
 
Velocipede said:
So, lets START the discussion with a slam at ALPA. There are plenty of dues paying airline pilots that are opposed to this. I'm just not one of them. So let's not tar ALPA with this kind of smear.
.
.
.
There you go. And you found a way to get your licenses. Doctors find ways to finance their educations. Why do you think pilot students deserve government/airline subsidies for the services they use?
Click to expand...

:laff::laff: WOW! How's the view from your high horse? Holy crap, I am at a loss for words right now. Credibility=Respect=0
 
The user fees have NOTHING to do with ICAO compliance like age 65. You should know better than to put up a swiss cheese argument like that.

All it is, is a money grab. The ATA fought off the EWR slot auction, just like EAA and AOPA are trying to fight off user fees. You know that the problem that the airlines are crying about is their own doing. If the airlines cut 5% of the number of departures, but used larger airplanes to cover the capacity, there would be no uproar of "GA plugging up the NAS". If an airline is VOLUNTEERING to give up 3 slots per hour to fix the problem at LGA, why the heck is the DOT/FAA willing to go with the plan? Once they take and never use AMR's LGA slots, and don't allow the gross over-scheduling of EWR, all of a sudden the airlines will be operating efficiently, and they won't be crying wolf at an excuse that doesn't exist. All the user fees are from the ATA's standpoint is a scapegoat to cover their own incompetence.

As for GA mixing it in with the airlines, any proficient pilot can do so quite easily. SNA has 2 runways, one is used exclusively by GA. While I've never flown into SNA, I have taken a 172 into BOS. Its the same deal there. You have to know what is going on, ATC will keep you out of the way, and it will all work out. Velo, All the problems that you have mentioned about SNA are not a problem with the NAS, its with stupid pilots. User fees won't fix stupid.
 
OldTownPilot said:
The user fees have NOTHING to do with ICAO compliance like age 65. You should know better than to put up a swiss cheese argument like that.

All it is, is a money grab. The ATA fought off the EWR slot auction, just like EAA and AOPA are trying to fight off user fees. You know that the problem that the airlines are crying about is their own doing. If the airlines cut 10% of the number of departures, but used larger airplanes to cover the capacity, there would be no uproar of "GA plugging up the NAS". If an airline is VOLUNTEERING to give up 3 slots per hour to fix the problem at LGA, why the heck is the DOT/FAA willing to go with the plan? Once they take and never use AMR's LGA slots, and don't allow the gross over-scheduling of EWR, all of a sudden the airlines will be operating someone efficiently, and they won't be crying wolf at an excuse that doesn't exist. All the user fees are from the ATA's standpoint is a scapegoat to cover their own incompetence.

As for GA mixing it in with the airlines, any proficient pilot can do so quite easily. SNA has 2 runways, one is used exclusively by GA. While I've never flown into SNA, I have taken a 172 into BOS. Its the same deal there. You have to know what is going on, ATC will keep you out of the way, and it will all work out. All the problems that you have mentioned about SNA are not a problem with the NAS, its with stupid pilots. User fees won't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

Stop posting nonsense like this! you dont have as much experience as Velociped! He even said so! :sarcasm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top