SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Sorry, but "slippery slope" arguments annoy the hell out of me. Expanding the fees to true GA is not inevitable. Not even close. Not enough of a revenue base for anyone to benefit from.
Save G.A.
- Thread starter Sprint100
- Start date
Sorry, but "slippery slope" arguments annoy the hell out of me. Expanding the fees to true GA is not inevitable. Not even close. Not enough of a revenue base for anyone to benefit from.
Airdale
Well-Known Member
Actually I never smoked in my life, But it is true GA carries for people then then airlines (GA is all flying except Military and Scheduled airlines), Did you know 98% of the planes are GA aircraft and GA accounts for more then 80% of the hours being flown?
GA has a huge influence on this economy, and its not just a hobby. Here in MT 1 out of 200 people are pilots, and GA is a way of life. Maybe your just a city slicker that went to a pilot mill that all you ever see and hear about is airlines, I dont know. If you ever come to Yellowstone let me know, I'll take you out in a super cub, try some Low Level Mountain flying, land at a grass strip in the mountains, and maybe even visit a small town that is only accessible by plane in MT you may even get hooked on GA. Airlines are pretty much non existent here. Ask Alaska what they think of GA? they depend on it everyday.
Okay, well if haven't smoked than maybe its the Mountain air out there!
I am definitely not a city slicker. People tell me all the time I'm a misplaced Redneck. Hunting, fishing and pick-up trucks are my hobby. 
I do love GA flying. A good friend of mine has a Piper Cub and we've gone flying a few times, nice and low over the river, even landed in a grass field. I loved it, its a blast! But again, thats just a hobby for me. I have to have money to do that stuff. I still don't believe GA carries more pax than the Airlines. Sorry bud, but you'd have to show me some statistical proof.
And just to clarify, when I refer to GA, that doesn't include Corporate operators or 135 Freight. If you're in the business to make money, than you aren't GA. Although AOPA would have you all believe that just to get a dollar.
For every GA pilot, there are 1,000 people that aren't. Those 1,000 people rely on the Airlines for extended transportation. Until the Government steps in and fixes things, I'm convinced we're all doomed in this industry. Nobody's job is safe, from Regional to Legacy. What would be nice is if the Government re-regulates, cans the majority of the Regional operators and moves those aircraft and pilots up to Mainline seniority lists and reduces RJ capacity. RJ's can still play an important role in filling voids in the travel market, especially in high priced oil markets, but they need to be on mainline seniority lists and eliminate the cut throat operators, like Mesa.
This will reduce the congestion, bring our wages back up to something decent and restore confident, reliable air transportation. The sacrifice would be those on the bottom of the pole (myself) and those trying to get into the industry. It would be ugly at first, but I think in the long run we would all benefit. Then maybe I'd be getting double the salary for flying a should-be mainline aircraft.
I should also say - Its nice to dream!
Now I'm getting confused by your stance. If I understand correctly, you have already conceded that the hub-and-spoke system of creating bottlenecks at the few major airports is the major driving force behind the costs involved in the system. How can you say that the corporate operators aren't paying their "fair share" when most of the costs involved are the airline's "share" to begin with? Corporate operators are paying more than their fair share already based on cost incurred basis.
Airdale
Well-Known Member
Funny thing is they used to! I'm with PCL on this, the cost of Air travel in the U.S. is too high for a deregulated, fair market. Keeping ticket prices low so the average American can afford it is costing us ALL. So either the Government does something to fuel prices for the Airlines or they step in and regulate the competition. The Airlines have proven that they can not succeed in a deregulated environment. Excluding Southwest, but again, they are not an International player and their fuel hedges are running out. We'll see how they fare in the market.
Like I said before, the Airlines and their incompetant management have proven that they can not play nice with each other. Since Uncle Sam won't let Air travel die because its so essential to the economy, then its time they stepped in and played Daddy.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I have conceded no such thing. The major airports are certainly a major cost in the system, but they are not the only cost. Billions of dollars go towards maintaining tiny airports that no airliner will ever use. The last report that I saw from the FAA showed that dividing out just corporate and GA's costs and comparing them to the revenue they generate, there is an enormous deficit that is subsidized by taxes and fees on airline tickets. The NBAA disputes this, but I trust the FAA more than the NBAA.
Why? The government system worked beautifully for 50 years. Not until deregulation did the whole system start to crumble, and it's only gotten worse as time has gone on.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Beautifully? I don't know that I would use that term. Which airline requested a new route only to have the CBA review it for 6 years and then deny the request based on the fact that the request was old?
falconvalley
Absentee Dad of the OOTSK, Runner, Cat Frustrator
I have no clue what that is. You do know I wasn't talking about business jets, right? I'm talking about your comments refering to making flying a 152 less desirable to raise your pay. The airlines aren't paying what you want because they can't afford it. Passing that on to an aviation hobbiest to make it too expensive to fly isn't going to fix that problem. If the airlines fix their financial problems and you get the opportunity to get a raise, that'd be awesome. I don't think making flying a 152 and learning to fly less desirable to get you what you think you're entitled to is very honorable.
Well, not only deregulation but the cost of entry is so low these days.
I'll bet you that if we all pooled our resources, we could probably lease an Airbus A320, sell the Arizona state government on the idea that we're going to bring air service to the outlying cities to get grant money. And probably get massive tax incentives to headquarter in Mesa (AZ, not the airline) because their economy is in the toilet.
Curses. There goes THAT idea...
Voila, we have a new airline!
And I'll buy a Harley, show up to investor relations meetings with a beer Buzz and they'll think I"m the next Richard Branson.
Then I'll start a clothing line and join up with Ca$h Money Millionaires to put out my first hip hop album.
I'll bet you that if we all pooled our resources, we could probably lease an Airbus A320, sell the Arizona state government on the idea that we're going to bring air service to the outlying cities to get grant money. And probably get massive tax incentives to headquarter in Mesa (AZ, not the airline) because their economy is in the toilet.
Curses. There goes THAT idea...
Voila, we have a new airline!
And I'll buy a Harley, show up to investor relations meetings with a beer Buzz and they'll think I"m the next Richard Branson.
Then I'll start a clothing line and join up with Ca$h Money Millionaires to put out my first hip hop album.
Sprint100
Well-Known Member
These days I'd consider this more than a slippery slope arguement. Look at all the laws implemented to protect citizens civil rights, but they are doing more for protecting the illegals. Plus anytime someone or an organization's solution to a problem is to throw more money at it, before they try and change anything internally, raises an immediate "worst is yet to come" flag.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
But that was the beauty of the CAB! Airlines couldn't just start up new routes on a whim. The CAB considered demand, fare elasticity, reliability, etc... before granting anyone a route. Rather than having a dozen airlines all serving an airport with eight flights a day, the CAB would limit it to a few airlines and the frequency would be determined by market demand. You didn't have 1,000 seats competing for 500 passengers just to "secure market share."
GA flying is extraordinarily cheap in America. No other country in the world has such cheap access to general aviation. GA pilots basically contribute nothing to the NAS and airport network that they utilize. It's all subsidized by taxes on the airlines. Nothing wrong with wanting people to pay for what they use.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Weasel words in that post were "basically". Outright fabrication words were "It's all subsidized by taxes on the airlines."
XLR99
Well-Known Member
OK I found the report from the Ohio DOT about the economic impact of "GA and Air Carrier Airports"
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Aviation/OHIO State Airport System Plan/Ohio-SASP_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
GA- $1.7Billion 17500 jobs
Air Carrier: $8.8Billion 125500 jobs
Also consider that there's a significant amount of non-exalted 121 activity at the 'Air Carrier airports'.
I guess 16% of $10.5 billion really isn't that important, since it's just a hobby and we're wasting money by maintaining non-121 airports....
Bear in mind that GA includes public safety, medevac, and volunteer pilot organizations like LifeLine, Angel Flight, etc.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Aviation/OHIO State Airport System Plan/Ohio-SASP_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
GA- $1.7Billion 17500 jobs
Air Carrier: $8.8Billion 125500 jobs
Also consider that there's a significant amount of non-exalted 121 activity at the 'Air Carrier airports'.
I guess 16% of $10.5 billion really isn't that important, since it's just a hobby and we're wasting money by maintaining non-121 airports....
Bear in mind that GA includes public safety, medevac, and volunteer pilot organizations like LifeLine, Angel Flight, etc.
OldTownPilot
Well-Known Member
All of GA pays their fair share through fuel taxes which the airlines are exempted from.
The current NAS funding is equitable to all airlines right now. If an airline can't compete based on the current NAS funding scheme that has been in place for the past decades, maybe they shouldn't be competing. I, as a GA user, don't want to subsidize 79 dollar tickets to see a freaking mouse.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat:
I don't see what the big deal is. You go to the CAB, and you say, I want to fly from city a to city b. And the CAB says, okay, fine, charge x dollars a seat.
It solves all the problems of airlines undercutting each other. There would be no situations like what just happened in Hawaii, where Mesa decided to come on in and offer $10 fares. The federales would say, nope, if you want to fly from Honolulu to Kona, you will charge x dollars.
If you eliminate pricing from the list of things airlines can compete on, then all of the sudden things like service start to become more important.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Careful, Tony. Someone will be along any minute to tell us we're nothing but a couple of pinko commie pigs.
charlie1017
Well-Known Member
I read somewhere about a congressman saying that it's time to re-regulate... Is there any real possibility that the government will step in, or will they just wait to see how the consolidation game plays out?
OldTownPilot
Well-Known Member
Re-regulation is a whole 'nother discussion/debate aside from user fees. Lets not try to combine the two.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The congressman you're thinking about is Rep. James Oberstar. He's chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. During hearings last week, he mentioned that it might be time to consider regulating the industry again. Considering that he's Chairman, he has the power to hold hearings on the matter if he'd like to. But since it would never get passed in a Bush administration, he'll likely hold off until after the election.
