Save the contract towers

[mshunter]

Always entertaining to see the non-airline people tell the airline executives how to run an airline.

Or to hear airline types tell GA they meed to subsidize a system they use and dinkest way more than anyone else. Just listen to your radios. Tell me the majority of the calls you year. The bulk don't start with an N number.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Or to hear airline types tell GA they meed to subsidize a system they use and dinkest way more than anyone else. Just listen to your radios. Tell me the majority of the calls you year. The bulk don't start with an N number.

The majority? Certainly. But 98.4%? No. Not even close.

 

[GolfChuck]

I think this has been lost in the conversation so I want to reiterate. The NAS is not in financial trouble. The tower closures are due to sequestration, which has mandated an 8.5% cut across the board for all government agencies. Since the FAA spends most of its budget on contracts and employee salaries, tower closures and furloughs are inevitable. It is NOT because the trust fund is under water, it is not.

To weigh in on the conversation. I fly recreationally, and I paid as I went to learn to fly with no intention of ever making money as a pilot. I did it all purely for my own enjoyment. I know I am very much in the minority of pilots. Anything that would increase my costs would mean I would seriously have to rethink the money I spend flying. I think the current system is fairly equitable.

 

[🦈💜]

Always entertaining to see the non-airline people tell the airline executives how to run an airline.

About as entertaining as the airline people telling the GA people that the system is screwing the poor ol' airlines at the expense of GA "fat cats".

It's often depressing to see how much sleaze there is in aviation on one hand, considering how much integrity there is on the other. Airlines are not the pinnacle of aviation, and they're not what the game is about. They choose to do business in an industry with a fairly obvious cost structure, and they can choose how to operate within it... but the modern approach of trying to maximize profits by screwing everyone around them is getting old.

Almost all of the complexity of aviation infrastructure is designed around airline operations.

What do you think airspace would look like in the modern age if "airlines" never took off?

Think about that for a moment, then try again.

-Fox

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

I was recommending his to handle it, or maybe on bad days add a fee to get priority to land. That would make money. 8)

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

It is NOT because the trust fund is under water, it is not.

I don't think anyone is saying that it is. I'm saying (and I believe Seggy is, as well) that the tax burden on airlines should be reduced, and the tax burden on GA should be increased. Same overall tax burden, just spread around more fairly.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

The majority? Certainly. But 98.4%? No. Not even close.

Buches of them start with "EXECJET", "DOTCOM", and "ONE PERCENT".

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Sometimes the schedule doesn't catch up for a week. Cancellations result in reduced revenue. Delays just piss off passengers. But since passengers only care about price, pissing them off really doesn't lead to reduced revenue. Welcome to a deregulated environment.

Eh, not really. Profitable customers care mostly about schedule. How many tickets did you buy last year? I bought more than 50. If the schedule doesn't work for me, there is no reason to buy the ticket. That's true for most business travelers.

 

[Stomp16]

For those who are advocating the user fee route to fund the NAS...

I had a stop last month at an airport outside the US to top off the measly 26 gallons of 100LL we burned for that leg and gained some insight to user fees. Fuel came out to a respectable $8gl (considering where we were) but the total bill came to $468 with the rest of that all being various user fees. That made each gallon of fuel really cost $18. Is this what you want for the US? Is this the type of fee system that you want the US to copy and do you consider that amount of taxes "our fair share"? Do you REALLY think that people will pay that for GA in the states? The answer is no and that's why places like Europe looks like it does regarding GA.

Sure, something has to change when it comes to funding. But to tax the GA guys to the point that they can't fly anymore isn't the answer...unless of course, that's your underlying goal.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Same overall tax burden, just spread around more fairly.

How about Nextgen and other capital intensive projects? Most of the cost is in equipping 121 aircraft, who should pay for that? (121 gets almost all of the benefit, but there are more GA aircraft and a disproportionate cost impact)

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

For those who are advocating the user fee route to fund the NAS...

I had a stop last month at an airport outside the US to top off the measly 26 gallons of 100LL we burned for that leg and gained some insight to user fees. Fuel came out to a respectable $8gl (considering where we were) but the total bill came to $468 with the rest of that all being various user fees. That made each gallon of fuel really cost $18. Is this what you want for the US? Is this the type of fee system that you want the US to copy and do you consider that amount of taxes "our fair share"? Do you REALLY think that people will pay that for GA in the states? The answer is no and that's why places like Europe looks like it does regarding GA.

Sure, something has to change when it comes to funding. But to tax the GA guys to the point that they can't fly anymore isn't the answer...unless of course, that's your underlying goal.

Yes, because the crazy 121 types think that somehow this is going to inflate their pay somehow. So yes, they think user fees are a good thing.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Eh, not really. Profitable customers care mostly about schedule. How many tickets did you buy last year? I bought more than 50. If the schedule doesn't work for me, there is no reason to buy the ticket. That's true for most business travelers.

Depends on the airline. SWA's and Spirit's profitable customer are not the same customer as Delta's profitable customer. In any case, it doesn't really matter. In a major weather event, everyone is delayed, so no one has a competitive advantage on schedule. Everyone suffers equally.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

How about Nextgen and other capital intensive projects? Most of the cost is in equipping 121 aircraft, who should pay for that? (121 gets almost all of the benefit, but there are more GA aircraft and a disproportionate cost impact)

This is one of the biggest holdups for NextGen right now. The airlines simply can't afford to pay for it. They need government subsidies to make it happen. Of course, that would be separate from the Trust Fund, so it's not relevant to this conversation.

 

[PositionAndHold]

Always entertaining to see the non-airline people tell the airline executives how to run an airline.

It's funny you say that. You tend to use that line in threads when a 121 pilot tries to tell airline execs how to run an airline.

Any way. 121 pilots complain about how the public needs to know about the lack of pay, your poor work conditions, how you need the proper rest and how poor training can be. Yet you advocate some thing that could take money from another pilots pay check by asking my bosses pay more then they already do. How with this rhetoric do you expect the public to care about your "plight" when fellow pilots are starting to not give a crap about our poor 121 "brothers"? The elitism in this thread is sickening. I spent two years at XJT and because of some of the attitudes I witnessed there and from other 121 "brothers" I hope to never see it again. When 121 pilots start caring about other pilots and not just about those in their little bubble, you might convince me to start caring about them. Good luck with the general public.

I'll say it again, airlines pay more because they not only use more of the resources, they directly use the NAS to make money. It's really that simple. Lets just say it even effects 121 pilot pay (because it doesn't, it never will) Do you really think if your airline realized any savings they would pass that along to any one but the shareholders?

NextGen will be a failure not because of a lack of funding, but a lack of space. No matter how well you sequence arrivals and departures, at some point they need to slow and exit the runaway. You can only launch and recover so many aircraft on a given piece of concrete. That's the bottle neck, until there is more of it every where, going direct-to and constant rate descents won't matter. The whole system will need more runways in order for any of it to be effective. If just one or two hubs can't handle the traffic it effects the whole system.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

It's funny you say that. You tend to use that line in threads when a 121 pilot tries to tell airline execs how to run an airline.

Yes, I tend to use that line whenever anyone who isn't an airline executive tries to tell airline executives how to run an airline.

Any way. 121 pilots complain about how the public needs to know about the lack of pay, your poor work conditions, how you need the proper rest and how poor training can be.

Maybe some pilots do, but I don't. I've always said that the public doesn't care and never will. I advocate pattern bargaining and lobbying on the Hill. That's what works. Trying to appeal to the public is a fool's errand.

Yet you advocate some thing that could take money from another pilots pay check by asking my bosses pay more then they already do.

I'm sorry if it might result in lower pay for you, but I'm also not willing to subsidize your paycheck, which is exactly what is taking place now. All I'm looking for is a fair system, and that's not what we have.

Do you really think if your airline realized any savings they would pass that along to any one but the shareholders?

Pattern bargaining would capture some of the money, some would go to shareholders, and some would be used for capital improvements. Just like any other increase in profits from any other source.

NextGen will be a failure not because of a lack of funding, but a lack of space. No matter how well you sequence arrivals and departures, at some point they need to slow and exit the runaway. You can only launch and recover so many aircraft on a given piece of concrete. That's the bottle neck, until there is more of it every where, going direct-to and constant rate descents won't matter. The whole system will need more runways in order for any of it to be effective. If just one or two hubs can't handle the traffic it effects the whole system.

Ahh, I see you're also an expert on NAS improvements and know more than the people who have been working on it for decades.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Ahh, I see you're also an expert on NAS improvements and know more than the people who have been working on it for decades.

I have worked with the people who have been working on it for decades, and I'm pretty sure the peanut gallery here could do better.

The fact that it has taken decades and billions of dollars to do nothing is proof enough of that.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

The fact that it has taken decades and billions of dollars to do nothing is proof enough of that.

When you don't have the money available to work on something, you tend not to make much progress.

 

[PositionAndHold]

Yes, I tend to use that line whenever anyone who isn't an airline executive tries to tell airline executives how to run an airline.



Maybe some pilots do, but I don't. I've always said that the public doesn't care and never will. I advocate pattern bargaining and lobbying on the Hill. That's what works. Trying to appeal to the public is a fool's errand.



I'm sorry if it might result in lower pay for you, but I'm also not willing to subsidize your paycheck, which is exactly what is taking place now. All I'm looking for is a fair system, and that's not what we have.



Pattern bargaining would capture some of the money, some would go to shareholders, and some would be used for capital improvements. Just like any other increase in profits from any other source.



Ahh, I see you're also an expert on NAS improvements and know more than the people who have been working on it for decades.

Subsidize my paycheck? I didn't want to do that after 9/11 to yours, but unfortunately our elected representatives thought different. The airline business as a whole has been subsidized waaaaaaaay more then a user fee could ever hope to generate. If it wasn't for us the tax payer, the airlines would not exist as you know them. I would argue your job might not even exist. Every time an airline manager has a problem, they run to labor, congress or who ever else they can try to blame/take a handout from.

As far as NextGen goes. I do consider my self an expert. I would hope you would to after many thousands of hours operating in said system. We operate in it every time we go to work, not the engineers sitting behind desks. But you're right, I'm sure there isn't a work group made up of pilots and controllers to help with input for NextGen. Why would they even ask our opinions, that's crazy talk.

Keep ignoring the true intent of what I've been saying. That professional pilots are arguing against other professionals they share the sky with. Conquer and divide, it's what our masters want. Us arguing with each other instead of standing together.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

When you don't have the money available to work on something, you tend not to make much progress.

It isn't a money thing, it is a incentive thing. There is little incentive for anyone individually to do anything.

 

[Kingairer]

If you isolated the aviation system from the rest of the governmet, is there enough money coming in to cover the cost? I dont know if that stat is available.