Quote:
it’s lower lead than old 100/130.Originally Posted by CBreezy
Are they allowed to call it low lead without it containing the one thing that makes leaded fuel have its own designation?
and 100ll has more lead than auto fuel ever did
Quote:
If we had true user fees instead of a fuel tax, and you used, "Minimal services," you would pay minimal fees. Originally Posted by Freds Ex
We pay a hefty user fee every time we buy 100LL. Please stop suggesting that we pay more when I already pay a hefty fee that is more than adequate for the minimal services/infrastructure we receive in return.
If a King Air uses the same services as a 777, why should it pay less just because it uses less fuel?
Quote:
If a King Air uses the same services as a 777, why should it pay less just because it uses less fuel?
Define "services".Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
If we had true user fees instead of a fuel tax, and you used, "Minimal services," you would pay minimal fees.If a King Air uses the same services as a 777, why should it pay less just because it uses less fuel?
Does a King Air need a 10,000 ft runway? Does it need wide-taxiways? Does it need a CAT 3 approach? Does it need a runway that's 18" thick designed to handle the weight bearing of a B777 when it's 1/10 the weight?
It's all hard to define what an airplane needs and needs to be charged for? If you start charging everyone for an IFR approach.. people are going to scud-run...
Freds Ex
Line Holder
close
- Joined APCNov 2024
- Posts:254
-
Likes:601
-
Liked:151 Times in 86 Posts
Quote:
If a King Air uses the same services as a 777, why should it pay less just because it uses less fuel?
1. You are naive and live in a dream world where you think that you could offer user fees and get your fuel tax back.Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
If we had true user fees instead of a fuel tax, and you used, "Minimal services," you would pay minimal fees.If a King Air uses the same services as a 777, why should it pay less just because it uses less fuel?
The only thing that will ever be put on the table by politicians is user fees in addition to fuel tax.
2. A typical king air consumes far less airport/ATC resources and airspace on a flight than a 777 does. If you truly don’t understand this, I don’t know what to tell you… besides maybe turn in your certs.
Freds Ex
Line Holder
close
- Joined APCNov 2024
- Posts:254
-
Likes:601
-
Liked:151 Times in 86 Posts
Quote:
Does a King Air need a 10,000 ft runway? Does it need wide-taxiways? Does it need a CAT 3 approach? Does it need a runway that's 18" thick designed to handle the weight bearing of a B777 when it's 1/10 the weight?
It's all hard to define what an airplane needs and needs to be charged for? If you start charging everyone for an IFR approach.. people are going to scud-run...
less than 1/50 the weight for a fully loaded King Air vs a fully loaded 777, but yes you’re spot onOriginally Posted by iaflyer
Define "services".Does a King Air need a 10,000 ft runway? Does it need wide-taxiways? Does it need a CAT 3 approach? Does it need a runway that's 18" thick designed to handle the weight bearing of a B777 when it's 1/10 the weight?
It's all hard to define what an airplane needs and needs to be charged for? If you start charging everyone for an IFR approach.. people are going to scud-run...
Quote:
If a King Air uses the same services as a 777, why should it pay less just because it uses less fuel?
why should someone making $10 mil/year pay more in federal and state taxes than another who makes $10 grand/year?Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
If we had true user fees instead of a fuel tax, and you used, "Minimal services," you would pay minimal fees.If a King Air uses the same services as a 777, why should it pay less just because it uses less fuel?
Quote:
ATC services (clearances, vectors, separation ..)Originally Posted by iaflyer
Define "services".
Quote:
These can be (and currently are) captured by landing fees. Completely separate from ATC user fees.Originally Posted by iaflyer
a King Air need a 10,000 ft runway? Does it need wide-taxiways? Does it need a CAT 3 approach? Does it need a runway that's 18" thick designed to handle the weight bearing of a B777 when it's 1/10 the weight?
Right now the airlines are subsidizing GA by a wide and unfair margin via the fuel tax. Users should pay for what they use.
Quote:
The only thing that will ever be put on the table by politicians is user fees in addition to fuel tax.
2. A typical king air consumes far less airport/ATC resources and airspace on a flight than a 777 does. If you truly don’t understand this, I don’t know what to tell you… besides maybe turn in your certs.
We're not talking airport resources, which are captured by landing fees. We're talking ATC services. A vector, separation services, flight plan filing. Granted the 777 requires more separation, and their fees would be higher. Originally Posted by Freds Ex
1. You are naive and live in a dream world where you think that you could offer user fees and get your fuel tax back.The only thing that will ever be put on the table by politicians is user fees in addition to fuel tax.
2. A typical king air consumes far less airport/ATC resources and airspace on a flight than a 777 does. If you truly don’t understand this, I don’t know what to tell you… besides maybe turn in your certs.
But you haven't explained why taxing fuel is the most fair solution. You've just resorted to ad hominems. Let's take two flights from NYC to MIA. One is a Citation and it burns 6,000 pounds of fuel. The other is a 777 and it burns 60,000 pounds. Do you really think the 777 was 10x the burden on ATC?
User fees are successfully used in Canada, UK and Germany.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-...system-broken/
Quote:
In a perfect world they would pay more only by virtue of a flat tax.Originally Posted by Uninteresting
why should someone making $10 mil/year pay more in federal and state taxes than another who makes $10 grand/year?
