(no subject)

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Does any of the money from landing fees go to ATC?  Back in the days
when I was flying, there was no apparent fuels tax to cover any of this
either.  There was a tax on aviation fuels which I thought, perhaps
incorrectly, was a high fuels tax because anyone who owned a plane saved
the receipts and got it back later on their income tax.  The only thing
I ever itemized was tax on fuel in lawn mowers just because I was such a
bear about it. 

I don't know that profits ever had much to do with salaries.  You could
often get a higher salary not by making money but by reducing how much
was spent...perhaps until the bankruptcy referee was appointed. 

"Edward H. Lybarger" wrote:
> 
> The entire air traffic control system continues to be funded publicly, while
> the industry itself was subsidized with mail revenue in the '30s and '40s.
> The local service carriers (Allegheny, Ozark, Mohawk, Piedmont, Frontier,
> etc.) existed solely because of subsidy.  Terminal costs, while ultimately
> recovered in large measure from the users through landing fees and rentals,
> are fronted with bond issues (I own some that pay a higher-than-market rate
> for a LONG time), thus relieving the carriers of huge amounts of debt
> financing.
> 
> Published income statements do not tell the whole story.  Nor,
> unfortunately, are salaries and bonuses tied to performance.
> 
> Ed
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> [mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Edward G
> Skuchas
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:40 PM
> To: 'pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org'
> Subject: RE: (no subject)
> 
> Your last comment makes me ask the question of why not?  Would you explain
> why the airlines are not making any money if all of the costs are fully
> allocated yet the presidents and CEO's are raking in huge salaries & bonuses
> based on the airlines making money?  Need to get a better perspective on the
> economics.
> Thank you,
> ED
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward H. Lybarger
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:25 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: RE: (no subject)
> 
> I don't think anyone has EVER made money hauling passengers, when the costs
> are fully allocated.  This especially includes airlines.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> [mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred W.
> Schneider III
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 1:44 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org; Scott R. Becker; Sondra Furedy;
> BILL VIGRASS1; bbente at transport.bombardier.com
> Subject: (no subject)
> 
> An example follows of the lunacy of investors in trolley lines:
> 
> Found a note early in a January 1901 Lancaster New Era yesterday that
> might be of interest.  Of 96 electric railway companies in the state of
> Pennsylvania in 1900, 20 made enough money to pay dividends to the stock
> holders.  Three-quarters of the companies were over-built,
> over-extended, over-capitalized, or whatever, and simply could not make
> money.
> 
> Was 1900 a particularly bad year?  Not at all.  Prosperity in 1900-1901
> was almost without precedent. The economy was roughly on par with
> 1993-2000.  In fact, the economy was so good that unions were being
> formed right and left as the working man tried to get some of the money
> that the investors were "stealing from the little man."  US Steel had
> net earnings of $55.0 million dollars between April and September 1901.
> But the worker might have gotten $1.50 to $2.00 a day.  Strikes were
> happening everywhere.  Remember Homestead?  Steel workers and machinists
> as well as coal miners were particularly prone to walk out.  Trolley
> companies in Reading, Scranton, Albany come to mind was being hit by
> strikers ... Scranton got it twice in two years.
> 
> I think what we are seeing is proof that no one could make money hauling
> passengers.  Public transportation simply is not essential, in the
> consumer's mind, like housing, food, medicine, toilet paper, a
> tombstone, and your own chariot.
> 
> With Carrie Nation and her henchwomen (is that a word?) running around
> smashing saloons, maybe all those people who put money in trolley lines
> should have instead invested in oak bars and bar mirrors.
> 
> Or perhaps we should have accepted much earlier that public transit was
> a failure and just let government run it in 1900 instead of 1965.   We
> could also have turned all the canals into public service / public
> employment projects.