LAS closes to corporate aviation

JEP said:
Don't you know...? Airline pilots are above the peons that fly corporate jets....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

vB9B5.gif
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Won't user fees, be just one more nail in the coffin to GA, but also airline flight training and the profession as a whole.
Click to expand...

First, let's get rid of this notion that GA is dying. GA is doing just fine. It just isn't churning out the ludicrous numbers of kids with SJS that it was 20 years ago. There isn't a large GA airport in the country that doesn't have a packed pattern on the weekends.

And charge the push toward MPL's? The pipeline is already suffering because of the exorbitant cost to become a pilot, and low pay afterwards mixed with high loan repayment. And 1500 hour rule only made that bad situation worse.
Click to expand...

If you want to fix that, then fix the pay situation. People will put up with high costs of training if there's ample reward at the end. There hasn't been for a while now, so that's why the pipeline has been drying up.

But let's be real clear here that no user fee proposal has ever included true GA aircraft. The 172s, Diamonds, and even Barons used for training would have absolutely no new fees under any proposal that has ever been made. It's always been limited to turbine equipment, so no true GA pilot or flight school would be affected.

Wouldn't user fees also kill schools like Traspac, and the ATCA/Lufthansa school here in Phoenix. And other places in Florida, where Japanese, Chinese and European airlines send their students because GA is essentially dead in Europe, because of user fees?
Click to expand...

GA doesn't really exist in those countries for many reasons, the least of which is user fees. But regardless, who gives a damn if Lufthansa can't train pilots in Phoenix for dirt cheap costs? Not our problem.

FL350 said:
Some claim to. I know that the inventor of the interwebs spends quite a bit of time in private jets, although it may be an inconvenient truth
Click to expand...

Yes, because it would be so practical for the former Vice President to fly commercial. :rolleyes:
 
After we implement user fees we can implement the user fees user fee to help pay for the collection and accounting of the user fees, maybe another fee to help pay a bonus to the gs-2s who try and find the people not paying their user fees or their user fee user fee. The need for all of this is clearly seen once every twenty years when there is a big fight in Vegas.

Seems a much better idea than a per gallon fuel tax.
 
gne in prog said:
After we implement user fees we can implement the user fees user fee to help pay for the collection and accounting of the user fees, maybe another fee to help pay a bonus to the gs-2s who try and find the people not paying their user fees or their user fee user fee. The need for all of this is clearly seen once every twenty years when there is a big fight in Vegas.
Click to expand...

This all becomes quite easy, actually, with the implementation of ADS-B. Everyone is easily kept track of with a Mode S transponder transmitting a tail number.

Seems a much better idea than a per gallon fuel tax.
Click to expand...

Per gallon fuel taxes are the most unfair tax schemes ever devised. Why should I pay 30% less than a guy with a 172 just because my airplane is more fuel efficient when fuel efficiency has absolutely nothing to do with what the taxes are supposed to be going towards?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
GA doesn't really exist in those countries for many reasons, the least of which is user fees. But regardless, who gives a damn if Lufthansa can't train pilots in Phoenix for dirt cheap costs? Not our problem.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that our ability to train the entire worlds (most of it) pilots is a huge financial boost to the economy and aviation in general. Tens of thousands of students dropping $100K each into our economy employs many many people. It might not be our problem if these airlines can not staff, but no reason we shouldn't take advantage while we still can. Just a point I wanted to make.
 
Goonie said:
Keep in mind that our ability to train the entire worlds (most of it) pilots is a huge financial boost to the economy and aviation in general. Tens of thousands of students dropping $100K each into our economy employs many many people. It might not be our problem if these airlines can not staff, but no reason we shouldn't take advantage while we still can. Just a point I wanted to make.
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned about the airline industry that is the backbone of the economy.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm more concerned about the airline industry that is the backbone of the economy.
Click to expand...
That's a very arrogant statement regardless of context, I suggest you should fly your mooney to San Pedro and explain to the dock workers how pilots are the backbone. While you're there you can have a chat with the rail workers and truck drivers.
 
I'm not sure how it's "arrogant," since I'm not part of that world anymore. But yes, other forms of transportation are certainly a part of that same backbone.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm not sure how it's "arrogant," since I'm not part of that world anymore. But yes, other forms of transportation are certainly a part of that same backbone.
Click to expand...
Don't backtrack, you're belief is that the airlines are the backbone of our economy.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Not backtracking. That's correct. The entire economy is dependent upon the airlines.

By the way:

your - possessive pronoun
you're - contraction for "you are"
Click to expand...
You're correct regarding the punctuation in that post, the english language seems to make an otherwise intelligent person look like a fool when asked to put their thoughts to paper (or in this case keyboard). Please explain how the airlines are the backbone of our economy, and how we are all dependent on them for our economic feasability.
 
knot4u said:
Please explain how the airlines are the backbone of our economy, and how we are all dependent on them for our economic feasability.
Click to expand...

That's such a bizarre question that I'm not really sure where to start. It's like asking someone to explain why they think water is wet. It's basically self evident. You honestly can't see how the economy would collapse without air travel and freight?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
That's such a bizarre question that I'm not really sure where to start. It's like asking someone to explain why they think water is wet. It's basically self evident. You honestly can't see how the economy would collapse without air travel and freight?
Click to expand...
I understand that the airlines and the freight they carry is a large piece of a complex pie. I haven't done any research but I'm willing to bet trucking overshadows aviation when their piece of the pie is assesed. Your assumption that we would fail without them may be valid, the truckers that stopped driving to manage their rental homes might disagree.
 
I'm not saying that the truckers aren't part of the same backbone. Sea freight falls into that category, also. Take any of them away, the economy collapses. Doesn't matter how much tech, manufacturing, or service companies you try to make, they're all worthless without freight and travel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top