Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Private Jets / Commercial Jets / Smart Skies  
User currently offlineBP1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 593 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

As an aviation professional, it is alarming to see the propoganda coming from the airlines and the Airline Transport Association blaming private jets as the sole reason the nations skies are so busy and croweded these days. Working on both sides of the fence, I can understand the arguments. The airlines want the private jets to disappear and the private jets are using other airports in the country that the carriers do not frequent. Private aircraft have access to to over 5,000 airports in the United States while commercial airlines serve about 475.

To understand both sides of the issue, check out:

www.nbaa.org (National Business Aviation Association)

www.smartskies.org (Smart Skies)

Cheers,
BP1


"First To Fly The A-380" / 26 October 2007 SYD-SIN Inaugural
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

The airlines don't want to get rid of them; they just want them to pay their share for ATC services used.


"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 1):
The airlines don't want to get rid of them; they just want them to pay their share for ATC services used.

It is a lot more than that. But their propoganda has done a good job if that is what you truely believe.

However if you think that private jets should pay their fair share of fuel taxes, then why don't we make airlines pay their fare share of airport infrastructure costs?

If you look at how the Aviation Trust Fund is funded it is from a combination of fuel taxes, ticket taxes and money from the general fund. In fact 26% of the funding comes from the general fund, which means every US taxpayer is funding it, not just those traveling by air (So there goes some of the fairness arguement). However, if you look at the Aviation Improvement Program, which constitutes approximately 25% of the Aviation Trust Fund spending, it spends 75% of its budget at the nations largest airports, providing up to 90% of the funding to build terminals, runways, etc. In fact, according to the FAA, while general aviation and reliever airports make up 85 percent of the airports, they account for only 26 percent of the total AIP spending. That 26% gets spread pretty thin at the airports that private jets use and I have seen my fair share of runways that need repairs and terrible facilities. There are no prestine runways or glass palaces at the airports that most private jets use. If a corporate jet user wants a fancy building they have to build it themselves, yet if an airline wants a fancy new terminal at a major airport then taxpayers fund it or pay fees to an FBO which privately built the building. These private airports are also the last to get updated navigation and weather facilities, if they even have them.

So what is fair about this? Maybe we should start taxing all the airlines and its passengers for the actual cost to build the infrastructure they use, not just the nominal fees that support the operations. So if the airlines are so hell bent on making GA pay more in fuel taxes, than maybe the FAA should start funding better facilities at GA airports, on par to what the airlines get at the major airports. ATC is only part of the equation.

And speaking of ATC, it is well known that it is the airline scheduling policies that cause delays, not GA. Airlines are well known to schedule arrivals and departure for the best of conditions. How many days are airports, like JFK, operating in the best of conditions (perfect weather, etc.)?



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2230 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 1):
The airlines don't want to get rid of them; they just want them to pay their share for ATC services used.

What makes you think they are not? They pay fuel taxes, same as the airlines. Further, GA aircraft usually park at facilities operated at on a for profit basis, and pay handsomely for that as well. Airlines park at terminals built largely with tax money. The National Airspace System should be operated like the interstate system, for the benefit of all who can use it. It is a basic piece of infrastructure, just like highways, waterways, and the mail.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 2):
It is a lot more than that. But their propoganda has done a good job if that is what you truely believe.

I didn't completely believe it. You are right about the whole thing being a propoganda war.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 3):

What makes you think they are not? They pay fuel taxes, same as the airlines. Further, GA aircraft usually park at facilities operated at on a for profit basis, and pay handsomely for that as well. Airlines park at terminals built largely with tax money. The National Airspace System should be operated like the interstate system, for the benefit of all who can use it. It is a basic piece of infrastructure, just like highways, waterways, and the mail.

According to smart skies (which I should probably take with a bigger grain of salt) Corporate air travel uses something like a third of the ATC services while only paying for 8 %.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineShyFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 1):
The airlines don't want to get rid of them

Wanna bet? Airlines love business travelers. Business travelers hate delays & cancellations. Fractional ownership of bizjets is on the increase. Airlines want those business travelers back.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 3):
The National Airspace System should be operated like the interstate system, for the benefit of all who can use it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 4):
According to smart skies (which I should probably take with a bigger grain of salt)

Especially considering who is behind Smart Skies:

Quote:
Smart Skies is a nationwide campaign, produced by the 18 airline members of the Air Transport Association of America (ATA)

http://www.smartskies.org/About/


User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 1):
The airlines don't want to get rid of them

Hahahahaha Now *THATS* funny!

Of course they want to get rid of them - they want all those NetJets folks back in F seats.

AOPA has an excellent page on this subject too:

http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/

The airlines are full of it, and most people are seeing through their "Smart Skies" propaganda campaign.



My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlineBP1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 593 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

Agreed!!!

The private jets have the right to fly too. By the way, fractional ownership has gone down the last few years thanks to Sentient and the fractional programs actually offering jet cards instead of the fractional model. All it takes is $150K and you have X amount of hours on a light, mid-size or heavy jet from Sentient. So instead of paying $10 Million to get a 1/16 share and a monthly management fee of $25,000 plus a fuel surcharge and an hourly rate to still use the plane - the jet card and charter programs are really much less expensive than fronting up the significant initial fractional cost.

The airlines are really laying it on thick and private jets operational numbers are astonishing. For example, private jets have been paying upwards of $7.00 USD per gallon at Teterboro this summer not to mention the $500 per night ramp fee plus the Port Authority landing fees. (TEB (Teterboro) is the main airport for private jets needing close access to Manhattan as JFK, EWR and LGA have such long delays and it is practically next to the Meadowlands.) And we pay our fair share of fuel and registration taxes not to mention maintenance and other related taxable charges.

Cheers,
BP1



"First To Fly The A-380" / 26 October 2007 SYD-SIN Inaugural
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2105 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 4):
Corporate air travel uses something like a third of the ATC services while only paying for 8 %.

There are a couple of problems with that arguement.

1. The airlines don't actually pay for the ATC services. The passengers do. The fuel surcharges and ticket taxes, guess where those go...

2 If the airlines had 30% more ATC services, would that reduce delays or make them profitable? No. A King Air getting radar vectors for an approach to East Elephant Ear, Alabama is not using resources that would impact the delays caused by the 30 plane line up in Atlanta. To fix that you need more concrete.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

I stand corrected.


"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5181 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

Here are some ideas that need to be explored.

First, the airlines ought to be given some immunity from anti-trust concerns, so that they can discuss shceduling at major airports. I know that this has been done in the past at airports such as LGA and ORD.

Second, someone should do a study, asking business travelers which they would prefer, a number of schedule choices that, when the weather goes bad, will be very late, or fewer choices that will run closer to schedule, no matter what the weather.

If you look at DL's schedule between ORD and ATL, it's 6 MD-88s, 2 737-800s, and 1 CRJ900. Could business travelers live with 6 flights (a combination of 737-800s, 757s, and 767-300s), if the on-time rate improved by 50%?

AA runs something like 18 daily flights between ORD and DFW. All but one of those are MD-80s. In some cases, there is only 40 minutes between departures. If I traveled frequently for business, instead of having an MD-80 departing ORD at 8:55 and another at 9:35, and they are on-time less than 50% of the time, I would rather have a 767-300 leaving at 9:15 that was on-time 85% of the time.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pilots For Private Jets posted Fri Jun 8 2007 14:57:35 by Uscgc130
VIPs Upgrade Their Private Jets posted Mon Nov 20 2006 07:37:36 by Leelaw
More Private Jets Ordered From Airbus And Boeing posted Wed Oct 18 2006 16:47:20 by Manni
Sweet Tu-134 Private Jets posted Sat Sep 23 2006 05:18:01 by Afay1
Famous DJs With Their Own Private Jets posted Sat Jul 16 2005 18:32:17 by Mia777
Lufthansa Private Jets posted Fri Apr 1 2005 14:29:07 by PanAmerican
Other Famous Private Jets posted Thu Feb 3 2005 07:36:56 by Swisskloten
Releif Pilots On Private Jets. posted Tue Jan 25 2005 02:28:09 by MNeo
Opinion On Blue Star Jets Private Carrier posted Sun Dec 26 2004 18:35:02 by Artsyman
Private Jets On TV Tonight posted Fri Dec 10 2004 23:23:38 by Blackbird1331