What I support is a viable airline industry.

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!