AOPA Rips Airlines a New One Over Delays

[BoilerUP]

I can understand their need to "play it safe," but sometimes they need to try a little harder to "work us in."

Here's a good example:

Yesterday afternoon PHL had a stop on all PTW and MXE departures due to a storms beyond those fixes westbound. Sure the storms were small and you could easily take a short vector around them...but those vectors put you into the arrivals for NYC and Washington airports, creating a separation issue for ATC. Faced with that, its a pretty easy decision to hold traffic on the ground instead of trying to figure out how to work them AND the traffic already airport into constrained airspace.

Too many airplanes to land on too few runways, controlled by too few controllers with too old equipment.

There is no single entity at fault for this summer's delays. Its the fault of the airlines, the government, airport authorities, passengers that want cheap tickets and lots of frequency but no airport expansions because of airplane noise over their house, global warming, liberals, conservatives, and damn dirty hippies.

What is NOT at fault is business or general aviation.

 

[Goose Egg]

All proposals on user fees only apply to corporate aviation, not GA. The doctor putting around the sky in his Mooney will not be affected by user fees. The billionaire flying around in his G-IV will be, just as he should be.

I'm against it either way, and you know darn well that most of GA is not doctors flying around in Mooneys, and most of corporate aviation is not billionaires flying around in their G-IVs.

-Goose

 

[acaTerry]

You guys keep talking about GA, but GA has nothing to do with this debate! It's just a red herring that AOPA uses to fight the user fees debate. All proposals on user fees only apply to corporate aviation, not GA. The doctor putting around the sky in his Mooney will not be affected by user fees. The billionaire flying around in his G-IV will be, just as he should be.

Um...you're wrong. Remember the last big promise from the gov't....withholding tax would go away after WWII was settled? Yet it not only stayed, but grew an grew, and we have more ways of being taxed than ever now? I don't tust the fed, nor do I think it's fair for the gov't to help airline barons get away with blowing their business. What if Starbucks was asking the feds to make a competing coffee company pay more because the siewalks were crowded (and providing Starbuks wth severe competition)? Should the fes intervene?
The fuel tax is the fairest way to do this. You fly more, you pay more. Period.

 

[PCL_128]

Come on now PCL, you of all people understand "slipperly slope", especially when it comes to our government and new revenue sources.

Besides, BizAv has jack to do with airline delays at hub airports, especially in the NYC area. Scheduling 35 airplanes to depart or land EWR, 20 of which are RJs, at the same time does have something to do with that, however...

I'm not concerned with delays in reference to the user fee issue. It's a separate issue as far as I'm concerned. That's just the rhetoric that airline management is using to push this thing through. The rhetoric is a means to an end. This is really just about making corporate and fracs pay their fair share. A Citation takes up just as much airspace as a CRJ, but pays a fraction of what the CRJ does towards maintaining that airspace system. The corps and fracs shouldn't be getting a free ride.

 

[PCL_128]

The fuel tax is the fairest way to do this. You fly more, you pay more. Period.

Fuel burn has absolutely zero to do with use of the NAS. A Citation burning 1600 lbs/hour takes up just as much airspace and uses just as many resources as a DC-9 burning 6,000 lbs/hour. Fuel taxes are just one more way to force the airlines to foot the bill for the business jets and fracs.

 

[BoilerUP]

Fuel taxes are just one more way to force the airlines to foot the bill for the business jets and fracs.

You don't think fuel is a fair, universal way to provide revenue for infrastructure growth...simply because the airlines use more of it? OF COURSE THEY DO - they fly more!

What alternative would you propose?

 

[DrewBlows]

Fuel burn has absolutely zero to do with use of the NAS. A Citation burning 1600 lbs/hour takes up just as much airspace and uses just as many resources as a DC-9 burning 6,000 lbs/hour. Fuel taxes are just one more way to force the airlines to foot the bill for the business jets and fracs.

Airlines pay more taxes because they use more resources. Airlines use the busiest airspace and airports in this country, GA does not as a general rule. You don't see hub-and-spoke business jet operations because their customers/owners don't want to deal with the hassle.

When a business jet takes off from an uncontrolled field and lands at another uncontrolled field it is using basically no resources yet it still pays a fuel tax. That's not to say business jets don't use the system, they do, but at a rate a fraction of what airlines do. Business jets aren't launching from JFK during the international push (an operation that causes ground stops even in good weather). It's the airlines!

 

[PCL_128]

You don't think fuel is a fair, universal way to provide revenue for infrastructure growth...simply because the airlines use more of it? OF COURSE THEY DO - they fly more!

It doesn't matter how much they fly and how much fuel they use. A business jet takes up just as much airspace as a 737. A business jet needs the same runways that a CRJ does. One business jet takes up the same amount of time and resources for the center controller that a 747 does. Trying to distinguish by fuel used is just comparing apples to muffins. The airport and NAS resources have absolutely nothing to do with fuel burn.

What alternative would you propose?

Well, I thought I made that clear: user fees!!!

 

[TNPILOT]

By the way guys I was kidding about the whole not carring about GA thing...I have not forgotten where I came from.

 

[2EASYPilot]

By the way guys I was kidding about the whole not carring about GA thing...I have not forgotten where I came from.

With the exception of our military friends, all of us have came from the civilian/ga side. We have one of the best general aviation industries in the world and have been able to sustain it without user fees or privatizing the FAA. To do otherwise would be a huge mistake in the opinion of many intelligent folks (excluding me). The General Accounting Office has reported that we will be able to continue with the moderization of the ATC system without these proposed changes.The reality is this is about airline management trying to cover their inept asses. The compensation and pension cuts apparently are not enough to keep those multi-million dollar bonuses rolling in...they are are playing on the emotions of those caught up in the inefficiencies they have created now. Once again, please do not forget where most of us started because ultimately it will effect the little guy as well if the government gets involved.

 

[rptrain]

You guys keep talking about GA, but GA has nothing to do with this debate! It's just a red herring that AOPA uses to fight the user fees debate. All proposals on user fees only apply to corporate aviation, not GA. The doctor putting around the sky in his Mooney will not be affected by user fees. The billionaire flying around in his G-IV will be, just as he should be.

what's your opinion on cabotage? i mean, they just want it to apply to cargo flights.

how about scope? it's just for non-jet aircraft with less than 50 seats, right?

how about pay for training? oh, wait, nevermind....

 

[rptrain]

One business jet takes up the same amount of time and resources for the center controller that a 747 does.

not even the ATA believes this anymore. what's the miles-in-trail and mandatory wake turbulence delay for a citation?

 

[Palerider957]

You guys keep talking about GA, but GA has nothing to do with this debate! It's just a red herring that AOPA uses to fight the user fees debate. All proposals on user fees only apply to corporate aviation, not GA. The doctor putting around the sky in his Mooney will not be affected by user fees. The billionaire flying around in his G-IV will be, just as he should be.

Idiot.