Find out how much money the gov gave to airline firms

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}

Welcome to IWETHEY!