Save G.A.

[PurduePilot]

They aren't.

And did I just see you calling for regulation of the industry again?

Did the sun come up in the west this morning?

I'm a big free market guy, but it's clear something drastic has to happen here. Have you ever seen LGA at 2pm after a t-storm in the summer? Chaos doesn't even begin to describe what happens. It's clear the system is collapsing.

It's now becoming a serious human rights issue as people are kept on planes for 6 hours or more with no access to food, clean water, or clean lavatories.

Something has to happen here.

However, as a consumer, it has been a boon to get from BOS-LAX for under $300. These prices have enabled more of us to fly. These prices have also lowered the cost of business nationwide (and probably worldwide) since both small and large businesses don't have to pay a cockeyed fortune to send their representatives across the country to close the deal.

So, basically, I'm caught in the middle here.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

PCL...Do me a favor and let me know if your union ever takes a stance on this...What im really looking for is to see if they ever agree with whaty you say "GA cost most = less pilots = more pay for current pilots". I have a couple trips I need to make to the West Coast during the year, and this could help choosing an airline to fly. No way in hell i'd ever give another dollar of money to any carrier in bed with someone that had those beliefs.

I doubt any union will ever take an official stance on that issue, but you might want to avoid pretty much any union carrier, since just about every union leader would agree that a restricted supply would be good for bargaining leverage.

Probably that you'll change your stance on something not out of principle but for whatever benefits you the greatest.
But down with those me first protoscabs!

Man, you really don't know me.

And what would the airlines do with the reduced tax burden? Increase profits, or further reduce ticket prices?

Guaranteed there would be a fare sale 3 seconds after legislation is passed.

I doubt it. Fares have been inching higher, indicating that the market can support these fares. I would imagine that the airlines would hold their fare prices steady and allow the reduced costs to increase profit margins, or at least allow them to break even in this fuel cost environment. Nobody has cut fares in a while now. (well, except for Skybus)

 

[OldTownPilot]

I doubt it. Fares have been inching higher, indicating that the market can support these fares. I would imagine that the airlines would hold their fare prices steady and allow the reduced costs to increase profit margins, or at least allow them to break even in this fuel cost environment. Nobody has cut fares in a while now. (well, except for Skybust)

Essentially they would use the "tax burden relief" to subsidize suppression of fares. Gotcha. Thats what I thought

 

[charlie1017]

I doubt it. Fares have been inching higher, indicating that the market can support these fares. I would imagine that the airlines would hold their fare prices steady and allow the reduced costs to increase profit margins, or at least allow them to break even in this fuel cost environment. Nobody has cut fares in a while now. (well, except for Skybust)

The airlines, in their inflight magazines for Joe Public, are pitching the current FAA funding scheme as one that contributes to higher fares...

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

The airlines, in their inflight magazines for Joe Public, are pitching the current FAA funding scheme as one that contributes to higher fares...

Brilliant PR, isn't it? They're getting the customers on their side and even pointing them to places online where they can get them to submit emails to their congressmen to urge them to pass user fees. The ATA isn't stupid. They know how to handle a marketing campaign. Will they actually lower fares afterwards? Doubtful.

 

[MikeOH58]

I doubt any union will ever take an official stance on that issue, but you might want to avoid pretty much any union carrier, since just about every union leader would agree that a restricted supply would be good for bargaining leverage.

Jetblue to San Diego it is hehe

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Don't forget to help the "pilots" clean the cabin on the way out.

 

[Kristie]

Probably that you'll change your stance on something not out of principle but for whatever benefits you the greatest.
But down with those me first protoscabs!

[modhat] if the thread keeps continuing down this road, we will close it [/modhat]

 

[mikecweb]

[modhat] if the thread keeps continuing down this road, we will close it [/modhat]

Wow.
187 posts and you make that one an example of why this thread should be closed.
Choice.

 

[falconvalley]

Ok, so anyway, I used to own a 152 and it aint "cheap". Well, not in my opinion anyway. I was taxed, plenty. I don't mind taxes as long as they are used for something beneficial to me. If we end up paying more taxes to revamp our airspace system, great. I don't, however, buy the idea that it will also make learning to fly less desirable and raise the pay rates of airline pilots. That would not be a good thing and is not something to brag about.

I'm not in this thread to debate whether GA and the airlines are taxed enough in balance or not. All I'm here for is to say that if a tax must be applied, it should be fair. I don't care how much the taxes are different in other countries. Different strokes for different folks. If we absolutely have to be just like Europe, why are we here in the first place. Let's concentrate on getting this airspace system up-to-date and get ourselves out of this hole of a profit margin we've had lately. Please don't think that we have to control the flow of pilots to make our careers better. That ideal left us with a shortage in the medical industry. We're supposed to promote the growth of aviation. That's what 'merica is all about!

 

[Kristie]

Wow.
187 posts and you make that one an example of why this thread should be closed.
Choice.

not that it was reported or that any post in here was reported, i just don't want it going down the "protoscab" route since we're trying to eliminate that kind of discussion ykwim? if it stays on track after 8 pages, then we're all good.

but it's ok if you don't understand....

 

[CK]

I doubt any union will ever take an official stance on that issue, but you might want to avoid pretty much any union carrier, since just about every union leader would agree that a restricted supply would be good for bargaining leverage.

I hope you realize how bad of an image you give ALPA to people outside the airline industry, like me.

That's all,

Alex.

 

[SteveC]

Wow.
187 posts and you make that one an example of why this thread should be closed.
Choice.

From The Rules:

10. Our moderators are not "referees". We're here to keep Jetcareers a friendly, informative and fun environment, not to ensure "overly vigorous" debates are fought out evenly. If a thread or user has gotten out of hand, report it to the moderation team using the 'report post' feature (). If your response to the user is in clear violation of the the rules of this website, you may receive a warning or infraction -- even though you feel "the other guy started it first".

 

[NJA_Capt]

So, my airline is paying a much higher tax than the corporate owner of the Citation X.

However....The Citation X owner is paying personal property tax on that aircraft, airlines aren't. He is also paying .21/gallon fuel tax and you are only paying .04/gallon fuel tax. Corporate jets are paying 5 times the fuel tax that airlines are. How about we make if 50/50. We'll pay .21/gallon if the airlines pay .21/gallon.

He takes up the same amount of airspace, uses the same facilities, takes up a landing slot at a slot controlled airport, etc... His burden on the NAS is no different than the 717's, but he's paying a much smaller share.

Not quite. Are we using the terminal ramp? Jetways? Teminals? recieving federal funding? Getting route subsidies? Please

Why should we pay for facilities we aren't using? Are you talking about the same airlines that are receiving bailout money from the Feds. Can you really justify charging more landing fees to corporate jets while WAIVING landing fees for airlines? That's ridiculous.

The rich a--hole flying his Citation X from his home in Nantucket to his beach house in Palm Beach would.

...just completely ignorant.

If the government would stop giving the airlines handouts and use the money for the improvements they were designed for we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is absolutely ridiculous to charge higher rates to one group....under the guise of improving the system.....and then give the money to the airlines for mismanaging themselves.

We've already had this conversation, your numbers and logic do not add up. The FAA and NATA data show that the majority of air traffic is the airlines....Period. Whether you personally like "fat cats" or not is irrelevant. It is not justifiable for Corp aircraft to pay HALF when airlines account for 80% of the traffic. When the fact of the matter is, corp aircraft are paying their share

Why should my passengers pay more money to inept airlines?

If airlines weren't treating their passengers so poorly, maybe they wouldn't be buying their own jets.

Fact:
Airlines pay .043 cents per gallon tax to the Trust Fund
Corp jet fuel is taxed .218 cents per gallon.
Gen Aviation fuel is taxed .193 cents to the Fund
http://www.natca.org/assets/Document...esearch2.0.pdf

Fact:
GA traffic at JFK - 2%
GA traffic at EWR - 3%
GA traffic at LGA - 3%

Operators of light general aviation aircraft contribute $60 million a year and corporate jets pay $210 million annually to the trust fund through fuel taxes. http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/la-userfees.html

 

[NJA_Capt]

This is the only country in the world with such a huge GA industry. The loss of GA wouldn't be a blip on the economy. The loss of a single legacy carrier would be devastating, and a couple of them are teetering on the edge right now. This country would manage just fine with a much smaller GA sector.

The loss of GA would have more effect than the loss of ANY legacy carrier.

Did the economy crash after Eastern....No
How about Pan AM? No again.

We've lost a lot more than 2 legacies and the economy is still alive.

 

[Maurus]

The loss of GA would have more effect than the loss of ANY legacy carrier.

Did the economy crash after Eastern....No
How about Pan AM? No again.

We've lost a lot more than 2 legacies and the economy is still alive.

If anything, I could see increased passenger traffic to the other legacies if one was to drop out. Say if United decided to stop operations would it really hurt the economy? Do all of their customers just stop flying? Nope, they will go to another airline and those airlines should do much better just from the increase in customers. United planes would most likely be sold to other airlines and such and the supply/demand will most likely not be effected along with the economy.

The only problem in this situation is the loss of jobs, but with the experience build in United and the growth of the other airlines, the other airlines will need them eventually.

(I have nothing against United, it is just an example)