There's the problem

Post #267,937 by bepatient 9/18/06 12:11:39 PM Reply	There's the problem They all will because none were allowed to fail and a couple of large scale merges were scared off by Justice. So the systemic problems with the industry haven't been corrected. At least one positive. They can't all add capacity like they used to...cause Airbus and Boeing are currently sold out through 2011. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #267,952 by mmoffitt 9/18/06 12:36:41 PM Reply	Heh again. But wait, there's SATS! SATS will rescue us! What a farce. All the hype about SATS puts pilots in a bad way. We want to see people excited about aviation, but SATS is a terrible idea doomed to failure. I think we don't need more than one major (across the pond types) carrier. Most of us Muricans are afraid to go anywhere anymore anyway. And mostly we're not welcome. So, why bother having > 1 company with 747's, 777's, etc.? bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #267,955 by bepatient 9/18/06 12:46:08 PM Reply	Disagree with 1 carrier That type of regulation is what made this indistry so screwed up in the first place. No pressure whatsoever to operate efficiently. It took near catastrophy at the level of the entire global industry before anyone figured it out. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #267,967 by mmoffitt 9/18/06 2:02:32 PM Reply	Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing. That type of regulation is what made this indistry so screwed up in the first place. That would have been airline deregulation. Found an interesting essay on this: [link\|http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Commercial_Aviation/Dereg/Tran8.htm\|http://www.centennia...n/Dereg/Tran8.htm] Proponents of regulation claimed that the CAB used its power appropriately to mandate carriers to fly routes of high traffic volume (and therefore high profit) as well as those with low traffic and profit. Without regulation, advocates argued, the airlines would concentrate on flying high volume and high profit routes, depriving out-of-the-way communities of air transport altogether. Moreover, concentration of airlines on lucrative routes could easily create a business climate of cutthroat competition. In the process, the carriers would undercut the economic stability of the industry and possibly cut corners on safety and maintenance of aircraft in an effort to reduce costs to compete more effectively with the other carriers. It was the fear of cutthroat competition that had motivated Depression-era members of Congress to vote for the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Regulation also ensured that no one company could dominate the market in a particular region and thus be in a position to set high fares because of the lack of competition. Federal regulation was one way of assuring that the industry operated efficiently and with the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans, although perhaps at the price of subverting the free market. Hmmm, regulation proponets argued that deregulation would lead to depriving out-of-the-way communities from air transport, undercutting the economic stability of the industry, and corners being cut on safety and maintenance. Wow, I guess those anti-bizness regulation fans were way off, weren't they? bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #267,975 by bepatient 9/18/06 2:56:27 PM Reply	In case you missed it the crisis in airlines was cause by regulation...the fact that it took deregulation to show the problems is a different story altogether. (nice use of selective quotes as well...as the article also pointed out that fares are over 1/3 lower now..saving travelers over 100BILLION) Besides, you have regulation proponents saying that regulation was required so no single carrier would get the most profitable routes. Then you propose to give the majority of the top 10 most profitable US originating routes to one carrier. Operational innefficiency was created by regulation. There was no need for an airline to care about paint vs polished when it was a simple matter of passing operational cost onto the consumer. The flights to Bakersfield dropped by the majors have since been replaced by smaller regionals. As for frequency and choice Thanks in part to those hubs, more than 55 percent of all passengers can choose from three or more airlines, compared to only 28 percent in 1978. Travelers from smaller cities, in particular, now have many more choices available. Flight frequency has increased greatly in most markets. Nor are business travelers "imprisoned" with no option but a connecting flight through a hub. A recent MIT study of 500 routes between the 100 busiest airports found that travelers could book nonstop service on 27 percent in 1989, compared to only 17 percent before deregulation. [link\|http://reason.com/9306/postrel.shtml\|linky] Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #267,977 by mmoffitt 9/18/06 3:13:42 PM Reply	I didn't miss it. The essay is unbiased. I said the essay was "interesting" meaning "of interest," not that it supported my position entirely. But, what I hear from "market" fans is ridiculous. The argument (that you've made here) is "See, we saved the consumer money!" B.S. If and only if you don't count the subsidies, bail-outs, etc. Even if I accept the notion that "operational inefficiency" that was introduced via regulation, I can successfully argue that this is just semantics. What you see with your myopic bizness glasses on as "operational inefficiency" is merely "ensuring better, safer, more reliable service to underserved communities." I don't expect you to understand that because you live in a large city. But I cannot buy your argument that we should just fsck everyone living in communities smaller than 1 million because, well, because they are communities smaller than 1 million. The hub and spoke idiocy CAME from deregulation. That's what failed and failed in a big way. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #267,978 by bepatient 9/18/06 3:29:34 PM Reply	BS I grew up in bumfuck, WV. During regulation was serviced by DC9...by force...and regularly boarded 1 to 2 passengers...and flew to Pittsburgh..3 times a week. Now there are, in the same bum town...3 flights per day. Hub and spoke has, as the article I linked to, allowed towns like Parkersburg, WV and Paducah, KY to be serviced by more than one airline..offering single connects to damn near any other podunk town in the country...and at a choice of time of day as opposed to day of week. If you noticed..the article I linked indeed provided statistics showing most secondary and tertiary cities have better frequency and schedules...and at lower prices. Airline safety has NOT been compromised by this. Of course, having 9 sexy stewardesses on every flight is a thing of the past...as is food and in some cases pillows and blankets. As for bailouts..they simply shouldn't have happened. The post 9/11 assistance for some was deserved (shutting down businesses for 4 days deserves some compensation). However, allowing United to remain in chapter 11 for 2 years? .. or CO to go 3 times ... no. They should have been allowed to die. It would have sped up the process of right sizing market capacity and forcing the majors to introduce smaller RJs into their fleet to serve smaller markets more effectively. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #268,046 by mmoffitt 9/19/06 11:25:13 AM Reply	Fly direct from there much? ONT, for instance. You ain't gettin' there from here anymore. Same for FWA, SBN and literally thousands of other airports now that we have "benefitted" from deregulation. Again, the drone of "So what?" So you can't fly direct from FWA to ONT anymore. You chose to live there and our tax money is better spent on me and mine anyway. But, don't worry. You can still get to ONT from FWA - if you fly FWA to ORD to LAX to ONT. But, you're from a small town, you've got plenty of time and even more money. You'll need more money because FWA-ORD-LAX-ONT is going to cost a hell of a lot more than FWA-ONT. But, that's a good thing because it makes money for the shareholders. Screw you poor working class slobs anyway. That about it? I thought so. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #268,049 by bepatient 9/19/06 11:39:00 AM Reply	What are you blathering about? Shareholders LOST from deregulation. And the cost of that 4 hop is likley to be the same or less (even in real dollars possibly) that it was before. And you don't think there was subsidization of some form going on to support a non-stop jet flight between to markets that may have 3-5 passengers a day? I want what you're smokin. And as for ONT, I can get a huge amount of non-stops...as it is now one of the fashionable alternatives to LAX. FWA is being serviced by 5 MAJOR CARRIERS. And again..your connect argument holds little merit...as connecting flights are generally cheaper than non-stop....BECAUSE of the efficiencies of hub and spoke flying...AND you can get from FWA to anywhere in the country in one stop...try THAT with point to point flying. Give up. You've a prejudice. Its irrational. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #268,051 by mmoffitt 9/19/06 11:52:57 AM Reply	Shareholders == Business Class customers. Direct to ONT - FROM WHERE? PHOENIX? LAS VEGAS? Not the airlines. The 4 hop less? Are you nuts? Here's an honest to $DEITY example from just today: This is the cheapest (as I said, there are NO non-stop flights): 3:00 pm Depart Fort Wayne (FWA): $486.00 Arrive Ontario (ONT) 8:31 pm \tSat 30-Sep Duration: 8hr 31mn \t Delta \tDelta Delta 6263 operated by Chautauqua Airlines6263 / 531 US Airways \tUS Airways US Airways 8104 operated by America West8104 \tConnect in Cincinnati (Cincinnati N. Ky.), Phoenix (Sky Harbor Intl.) And here's from ORD: $361.00 8:11 pm Depart Chicago (ORD) Arrive Ontario (ONT) 12:59 am tip+1 day \tSat 30-Sep Duration: 6hr 48mn Ted \tTed Ted 1475 operated by /UNITED FOR TED1475 US Airways \tUS Airways US Airways 8266 operated by America West8266 \tConnect in Las Vegas (McCarran Intl.) And here's from IND: $335.00 3:15 pm Depart Indianapolis (IND) Arrive Ontario (ONT) 9:57 pm \tSat 30-Sep Duration: 9hr 42mn \t Continental \tContinental Continental 3213 operated by /EXPRESSJET AIRLINES INC DBA CO 3213 / 1427 \tConnect in Houston (IAH) But, I live in a small town, right? I should be penalized, right? People in Fort Wayne (unless their employer is footing the bill) NEVER fly out of FWA anymore. Why? Because deregulation has brought (as it always does thievery) into the mix. It used to be cost effective to fly out of FWA. I didn't live here prior to deregulation, but a ton of people I know did. And they say that there was no difference in prices between IND and FWA origination. No more. I can save $150/seat by driving to Indy. Which is as it should be, right? Because Indy's population is big enough, right? Of course small airports were subsidized - THEY SHOULD BE. It's like the highway system, man. Or should we only have paved roads in major cities as well? Any way you slice it, airline deregulation fscked small towns and their occupants. And devasted a once vital part of our infrastructure. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #268,078 by bepatient 9/19/06 5:10:26 PM Reply	What? There is no business class domestic. Again, you must be smoking something. And why should Ft Wayne have the same service as Indy? Because the government says so? And you don't think that FORCING innefficiency doesn't come out in the price of the product somewhere else? And why not check other secondaries. Make the trip to South Bend and get to ONT for 250. Cheaper than ORD (which SHOULD have non stop service) and Indy. And why do you feel it is your right under the deity to have nonstop service to every place on the planet? (won't even get to price...because I guarantee that you were would have paid more pre-regulation) Its NOT like the highway system. You buy your own transport to deal with the roads. To make it similar, you would have to buy the car, then the government would tell you how to maintain it, what gas you were allowed to use, how many passengers you HAD to have to make the trip, the exact roads you were allowed to drive to get there...etc. They would charge you for your garage, they would charge you for all traffic lights...and the electricity to run them...and then tax all of those payments in order to fund improvements to the garages for homeowners in Toledo. You simply can't get past the fact that you..in one market...can't fly nonstop to another market. You ignore that in the past you would have to pay more AND deal with fewer options to do it. Within one hours drive of your beloved little spec of humanity in Indiana, post deregulation, you have 240 flight options to get from point a to point b, that being northern indiana to the LA area....and some of those options are for under $250 (plus your beloved taxes)...which wouldn't get you halfway up the steps on flights pre-deregulation. Non-stop flying is not a constitutional right. It is a luxury. Might as well say the government should force Cadillac to sell you the top of the line model for $999. What you support is government running of the airlines. Ask Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Brazil and a host of other countries how well that worked for them. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #268,129 by mmoffitt 9/20/06 9:15:16 AM Reply	What I support is a viable airline industry. Which has been proven impossible with deregulation. You simply can't get past the fact that you..in one market...can't fly nonstop to another market. Deregulation brought that to me. Under regulation, I was able to fly nonstop. Something you're still able to do. With a mode of transportation that all of us pay to support. But I guess in the land of Beep, "Some people are more equal than others." You ignore that in the past you would have to pay more AND deal with fewer options to do it. Again, that was not the experience of people who have lived here their entire lives. you would have to buy the car, then the government would tell you how to maintain it, what gas you were allowed to use, exact roads you were allowed to drive to get there...etc. You do remember that I bought my own airplane, that I pay hangar rent, that (when flying IFR) I am told the route to take - or even if I can take it VFR or IFR think Washington ADIZ, etc. tax all of those payments in order to fund improvements to the garages for homeowners in Toledo. That is what is happening now. Only the benefits of those tax subsidies are enjoyed by a smaller group than was the case under regulation. The BL is "this ain't workin'." Deregulation is not the sole cause of the demise of a once great industry, but it sure hastened it. The thing is, it really is like the highway system. It's mass transportation ferchrissakes. It's vastly more efficient (not to mention safer) than automobiles, trains or anything other than space flight. Yet, access to the most efficient use of that mode of mass transit is unevenly distributed - and that in no small measure is a direct consequence of deregulation. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #268,138 by jake123 9/20/06 11:00:55 AM Reply	One nit I'd be very surprised if it's more efficient or safer than trains, though of course in NA we've let our rail infrastructure go to such an extent that the upfront costs of bringing it back online would be a major capital investment that would only pay off over the long term... and my experience of business here in NA (I include the business community here in Canada in this assessment In Spades) is that they're not very good at looking at the long term like that. Most of the studies I've seen of cost per passenger mile shows that rail beats almost everyone hands down; the only problem is that it does take longer to get from point A to point B. On the plus side, if you have a good rail infrastructure and good carriage, that time can be more pleasant than it is in any other form of mass transportation. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #268,163 by mmoffitt 9/20/06 3:00:53 PM Reply	Nit granted. But airline travel is still the safest "per passenger mile" of any mode of transportation. I'm sure with adequate infrastructure support, rail travel would be the safest. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #268,165 by bepatient 9/20/06 3:58:59 PM Reply	But still...you ignore one point You can get to more places now for less money than was ever possible in one stop during regulated travel...with much greater frequency. The problem you insist is that you can't fly non-stop Fort Wayne to Ontario...and this makes deregulation bad. You're off your rocker:-) Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #268,355 by mmoffitt 9/22/06 2:23:39 PM Reply	No. The problem is not that I can't fly to ONT direct. The problem is that the entire aviation industry is in a shambles. Deregulation was a leading cause of that. Why? Because the Fed backed out. We don't have the Fed demanding that FWA have DC-9/DC-10/Boeing 737/etc. service - there are no direct flights anymore. So, there are fewer aircraft orders, so there are fewer aircraft mfg jobs, fewer mechanics jobs, etc. We all paid taxes that supported all this - once. We don't anymore. Aside: And there is, in fact, a down side to this wrt to travellers as well. Under regulation, airlines had to compete on service. They all cost the same, so how did one decide which airline to travel? The one with the best service/food/on time rating/etc. But that's an entirely different matter and it won't be too long (if such isn't the case already) that no one will remember when it was "fun to fly commercial." Aviation is in its last stages and deregulation was a leading cause of the cancer that will result in its death. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #268,358 by bepatient 9/22/06 3:26:10 PM Reply	Funny I'd talk to Boeing and Airbus first. And Bombardier and Embraer. The first 2 are sold out through 2011. even with the airbus disaster that is the 380. And your argument continues to run counter to the fact that there are more flights with more frequency now than before. Yes, there is less point to point flying between secondary and tertiary cities. And the elimination of that financial burden fueled the capacity expansion that allowed for the increases. And the complete disaster of airline management to control that growth caused the industry to collapse. To many flights with too much frequency led to low load factors...and the decline in travel post 9/22 combined with the increase in fuel and labor costs created the perfect storm leading to this current problem. Everyone looks at Southwest as the "great example of point to point". You DO realize that almost all of their profit in this century is due to financial hedging, don't you? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #268,372 by Ashton 9/22/06 7:26:49 PM Reply	They may be on way out.. anyway___hyperbolically related to your 'cancer' quip - Depending on how much (how good / how convincing..) become the studies of effects of stratospheric jet-fuel residuals: remember the study made in the days after 9/11? (Because it was the first time in decades, it was possible..) Nova gave it an hour, a few months back. "Dimming of intensity of visible light" over recent decades (and the instruments for comparing such measurements are pretty elementary.) What was different? One thing: NO JETS OVERHEAD. None, nada, zippo. Etc. 'Course we can and likely shall rationalize the indispensability of jillions of commercial flight-miles and $$$$ - after all, we just don't Do long-term anything. But this cat is out of the bag: and it's only a little-early for deciding that the effects are nontrivial. Just a load o' Physics Fun to be fleshed out. Quantization should be er, a gas - especially in a culture that is being inculcated with associating science with the Debbil, and is expecting trumpeters to descend any old day now - playing Taps. 'Course what do I know -?- maybe Corporate-science IS the Debbil; lucky we invented that all-purpose icon..
Post #268,375 by Another Scott 9/22/06 8:18:59 PM Reply	There were some post 9/11/2001 studies on this. Having almost all air traffic grounded for a few days allowed a comparison to be made of the effect of aircraft on clouds, etc. E.g. [link\|http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresearch.pdf\|Contrails reduce daily temperature range] - a 1 page article from Nature. Basically, the contrail clouds reflect light during the day and act as a blanket at night to reduce the maximum daily temperature range. The temperature range was about 1 degree C larger when the planes were grounded than the 3 days before; 3 days later (when the planes were flying again) the temperature range was about 1 C less than the 3 days before 9/11. The sky was interesting those 3 days. We may be the last people to see such a sky over cities in the US. Cheers, Scott.
Post #268,379 by drewk 9/22/06 8:46:44 PM Reply	And I was too busy moving to notice === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #268,639 by mmoffitt 9/25/06 3:24:22 PM Reply	Interesting. Thanks! bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #268,181 by Arkadiy 9/20/06 10:02:41 PM Reply	"All of us pay to support"? I certainly don't know much about aviation, but I'd expect that the air transportation is paid by those who fly, to the extent that they do the flying. Please enlighten me: to what extent did I support the airline industry this year if I had not bought a single ticket? ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #268,183 by jake123 9/20/06 10:18:59 PM Reply	Find out how much money the gov gave to airline firms and figure out how much of that was paid by you. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #268,185 by Arkadiy 9/20/06 10:25:07 PM Reply	You mean, the big, regulated oligopolies of the past? Or the big, unregulated, slowly dying mammoths of the present? Last time I flied, it was Jet Blue. Are they getting any money from Govt? ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #268,189 by broomberg 9/20/06 10:30:05 PM Reply	Yes [link\|http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html\|http://hasbrouck.org...hives/001001.html]
Post #268,222 by bepatient 9/21/06 10:19:21 AM Reply	Wow, is THAT a skewed diatribe It ignores EVERY instance of taxes and fees charged to airlines that are not charged to other companies (like federal excise) it ignores the PFCs that are regularly plundered by local govt in exchange for the "beneficial tax treatment of construction". Trust me...if it was a huge burden (as opposed to a huge cash cow)...there wouldn't be near as much effort to keep them afloat. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #268,283 by Arkadiy 9/21/06 8:33:02 PM Reply	Shall we compare airlines to trucking? Infrastrucure built by government, safety services provided by same, some proportion of auto mechanics probably got their training in the Army, kids are taught to drive for free at high schools (not commercial license, but still...) Sorry, I don't buy that. I was looking for direct payments, buy-outs and some such. The level of government support you're citing may entitle the taxpayers to demand safe and reliable service on the routes that the airlines do fly. I don't think it entitles the taxpayers to demand that routes be opened where it commercially makes no sense, like mmoffitt is doing. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #268,221 by bepatient 9/21/06 10:14:47 AM Reply	This year, none. Not saying that the UA pension bailout won't cost something....BUT you would have to offset the HUGE tax burden on the industry before you got to income taxes. In addition to the fuel taxes, the passenger facility charges and the income taxes generated by those employed within the industry, you have the excise tax on every ticket sold. If you pay $100 for a ticket, the airline sees just over half of that as revenue, after taxes and related fees. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #268,351 by mmoffitt 9/22/06 2:02:09 PM Reply	CLUE: You have to include Airport Funding. And the Class Bravo's get the Lion's share of funding. For example: More than USD337m in federal funds has been committed by the US government for the first phase of a USD7.5bn expansion of Chicago's O'Hare Airport. [link\|http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2005_Nov_23/ai_n15877478\|http://findarticles....v_23/ai_n15877478] bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #268,356 by bepatient 9/22/06 3:18:10 PM Reply	No, I don't. And I can tell you Ford, GM and others don't commit a DIME to highway development...but United and AA are going to foot BILLIONS in the airport project in ORD. Plus, the government has been collecting $3 per passenger for YEARS that is supposed to be earmarked for airport development. For ORD that is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100M/yr...and since the improvement is slated to double passenger throughput...they'll be raking in 200M/yr once the runways open. Also, the Fed has facilities in those airports, shouldn't they be required to pay for the updates to their areas? Is that a subsidy, or just their share? In Philly, the government politiced and gave airport space to southwest after US Airways spend 500million in renovations...the city gave little, and then stabbed the main carrier in the back. And..in a project that is going to employ thousands for many years...and permanenty increase employment in the area...I would say the government is make a small investment that is going to pay long dividends. And THAT is something that government does for all business..investments and/or tax breaks in exchange for employment guarantees. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #268,547 by Arkadiy 9/24/06 8:14:22 PM Reply	Errr... Did you just say that the govt is paying 4.5% of the cost of some major project? And because of that you, Mr. Taxpayer, get to make demands for service from the users of that project? I don't think so. In any case, even if they were paying a lot, the fix is to stop paying, not to give them rights. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #268,638 by mmoffitt 9/25/06 3:18:52 PM Reply	Under the AIP, the fed picks up 90%. State: 5%, Airport sponsor/owner 5%. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #268,646 by bepatient 9/25/06 4:08:55 PM Reply	Complete and utter BS You have no link because you have no facts. [link\|http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-11-27/35066.html\|http://www.theepocht...-11-27/35066.html] Vast majority funded by bond sale....NOT the federal government. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #269,642 by mmoffitt 10/6/06 2:39:17 PM Reply	How's this, toddler? Emphasis mine in consideration of the learning impaired. Central Region Airports Division 2/1/06 AIP Sponsor Guide 100 - Airport Improvement Program (AIP) OVERVIEW The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) is a federal grant-in-aid program that represents a major source of funding for airport development and planning. Established in 1982 with the passage of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, the AIP has been amended several times since, most recently with the passage of the Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act . Funds obligated for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust fund, which is supported by user fees, fuel taxes and other similar revenue sources. Recipients of AIP grants are referred to as "Sponsors." A Sponsor\ufffds eligibility to receive funds under the AIP program varies per the type of Sponsor and the type of project activity. In general, a sponsor may be a public agency, private owner or State entity that is associated with a public-use airport. Sponsors must be legally, financially, and otherwise able to carry out the assurances and obligations contained in the project application and grant agreement. ELIGIBILITY Eligible projects include those improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and environmental concerns. Generally, Sponsors may use AIP funds for most airfield capital improvements, necessary land acquisitions and safety of approved safety equipment. Prohibitions include landscaping, artwork, parking facilities and costs associated with "exclusive use" development. Airport operational costs such as salaries, normal maintenance services, operational equipment, and supplies are also not eligible for AIP reimbursement. FEDERAL SHARE The AIP does not reimburse sponsors the full amount of a project expense. The amount of reimbursement will vary with the type of sponsor. \ufffd For large and medium primary hub airport, the Federal share is 75% of AIP eligible expenses with the exception of noise program implementation, which is 80% Federal participation. \ufffd For remaining airports (small primary, non-primary, relievers and general aviation airports) the AIP participation rate is current established at 95% of AIP eligible costs. [link\|http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/central/aip/sponsor_guide/media/0100.pdf\|http://www.faa.gov/a...de/media/0100.pdf] bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #269,654 by bepatient 10/6/06 3:27:15 PM Reply	Crawling before you walk Now, define eligible and show how much of that eligible is being funded in ORD. You will find it is VERY LITTLE. And when you compare it to the incremental tax revenue you will find it to be even less. ORD is being funded by levy in the majority, by some local taxes in the minority and by the fed in a small minority. And you may even be able to argue they are paying less than their share based on their use of the facilities. But that wouldn't help your argument at all, would it? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #268,352 by mmoffitt 9/22/06 2:03:08 PM Reply	#268351 bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #267,996 by SpiceWare 9/18/06 6:12:05 PM Reply	fscked? really? I've flown into [link\|http://www.fly-cwa.org/about.htm\|Central Wisconsin Airport] a couple times to visit my brother since he moved to Wisconsin. Quite a busy little airport: Three airlines provide 18 flights per day which connect through Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit and Milwaukee. It's located in Mosinee, population 4,176, between [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wausau%2C_Wisconsin\|Wausau metro area](78,664) and [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens_Point%2C_Wisconsin\|Stevens Point](24,551) / [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plover,_Wisconsin\|Plover](10,520). Not much else is in that part of the state. You can check the bottom of each link in the "Surrounding municipalities" section. Darrell Spice, Jr. Trendy yet complex\nPeople seek me out - though they're not sure why\n[link\|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass\|Artistic Overpass] [link\|http://www.spiceware.org/\|SpiceWare]
Post #268,015 by lincoln 9/18/06 9:16:55 PM Reply	Stevens Point has a great local brewery. I'm partial to the flavoring of local Wisconsin beers; they're generally lighter than the heavier products of today's microbreweries. lincoln "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem. I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *Citizen* of the United States. [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #267,959 by jbrabeck 9/18/06 1:28:20 PM Reply	SATS? A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
Post #267,964 by mmoffitt 9/18/06 1:49:39 PM Reply	Small Aircraft Transportation System. NASA and the FAA's pipedream. [link\|http://sats.larc.nasa.gov/main.html\|http://sats.larc.nasa.gov/main.html] bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #267,979 by jbrabeck 9/18/06 3:36:53 PM Reply	Thanks A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)

Welcome to IWETHEY!