The International Cessna^® 170 Association

What about all the seats that are empty, Karl? Does the fuel burned to carry that seat fit the scenario you suggest?
I doubt that kerosene from an airliner burns cleaner than our EPA-mandated gasoline automobiles. (And the high altitude burning of that kero is especially suspect, I believe, in the overall affect on the environment.)
But, it's difficult for you and I to dispute the points we suggest.
I just think the airlines, as commercial ventures, should pay the brunt of the ATC system of which they are the predominant users. (As is the corporate jet-set.)
Stange tho', how the gov't will bail out Chrysler and some corporations, yet continue to instigate rules which punish air carriers, seemingly oblivious to the downstream repercussions to the economy of such actions. I simply can't imagine how the general public can ignore the flagrant privatization of public services this administration (and their compadres at the state level) pursues. (Mr. Perry, Gov/TX is having a field day condemning private land with public money under "Eminent Domain"...then converting it (along with decades-old public roadways) to privatized/operated toll roads to be constructed and managed by his corporate buddies.)

gahorn wrote:What about all the seats that are empty, Karl? Does the fuel burned to carry that seat fit the scenario you suggest?

Empty seats? Those are hard to come by, but yes I used 75% load factor and got about 23mpg/revenue seat mile. Most airlines are actually running 80-85% load factors.

gahorn wrote:I just think the airlines, as commercial ventures, should pay the brunt of the ATC system of which they are the predominant users. (As is the corporate jet-set.)

Agreed. I think the GA that the airlines are really after are not you and I, but the "corporate jet-set" and the fractional ownership operators and soon the VLJs charter operators.

gahorn wrote: Airlines also contribute more to overall pollution, noise, and global warming than private aircraft do

Gobal Warming? now theres a subject I had hoped never showed up on the IC170A forum. Wheres my carbon credits? I think the association should install some sort of measuring device on our 170's and be exempt from user fees as we go around measuring this global warming. Lance

Other fees are already creeping in. I used to go pick up friends when they arrived at San Jose International. It was nice and the FBO would even happily send a shuttle over to the terminal to pick up the passengers. The last time I went I was charged $40.00 for 10 min. of parking . When I questioned why the change in policy they said they don't want us (general aviation) there anymore.

i almost had to pay a user fee about 20 years ago.
i was flying back from iowa city with,
believe it or not, a german gal,
when we ran into a terrific thunderstorm.
i turned around and landed on a private strip
just east of Brooklyn, Iowa.
the owner was hot, and demanded a landing fee
then sofened up when he saw the blackness in the west,
and especially when it pounded down rain
and then hailed for about 20 minutes.
merifully he let me into his hangar and my rag wings were saved.
he was amazed that i had to translate everthing to
this scared german gal about everything that was going on.
the owner really sofened up when i explained that
she was more frightened about the fact that he was
madder thatn the storm we almost flew into.
in the end, he for went the fees.
and sheepishly apologized to the german gal.
is this a fantastic story or what?
dave

I'd be willing to bet, that if 'user fees' are incorporated, the current fees for parts, etc. will not be eliminated. They will just add the fees on. Things seem to work this way.
As AOPA says, the current system works well, and the money is adequate. What should be done, is make flying cheaper so more people can fly and pay the fees we pay now. That would increase the money and not hurt anyone. Remember, the original sanction of the FAA included the statement that they should 'foster' aviation, not destroy it!

was in DM today for some of the
iowa aviation meetings.
got to hear congressmen boswell
on the 'users fees'
had to get home to pick up my kids
so didn't get to meet boyer
iowa

Watkinsnv wrote:...Gobal Warming? now theres a subject I had hoped never showed up on the IC170A forum. ..

Check out the criticism of our fellow aviator, John Travolta (and see his planes....you'd think he could afford more than a shade-hangar.)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/a ... article.do

I used to fly over this place on the way to visit my Dad in Florida, and never saw an airplane parked there. I wonder if it's just a "weekend getaway", and he actually keeps the airplanes elsewhere. They certainly couldn't be maintained there.

Miles

gee,
i'd think that 2 jets would be enough!
iowa

The Administration’s Marion Blakey, in "Preparing for Tomorrow", Reno, NV
March 29, 2007, her speech to the Aircraft Electronics Association
“… the owner of a very expensive airplane is engaged in a heated dispute that hinges on the cost of a Starbucks latte. It’s important to note here that if the fuel tax is increased, it still represents less than five percent of the overall cost to fly your GA aircraft. …The commercial traveler is paying 95 percent of the cost but imposing only 73 percent of the cost. A seat on a commercial jetliner is the most heavily taxed spot in all of aviation….”

Has anyone mentioned in the discussion that the commercial jetliner with it’s commercial traveler imposes ONE HUNDRED PER CENT (100%) of the need for AIRPORT TERMINAL SECURITY, and virtually of ALL THE COSTS associated with the need of a Transport Security Administration! She want to talk “per-seat”??? On a per-seat basis the commercial traveler imposes 99% of the ATC requirements of FAA. If anyone needs to pay user fees it’s the commercial traveller. Not GA.