(no subject)

[Edward H. Lybarger]

The Trustee in charge of the demise of Eastern was a great example of the
logical extension of your second paragraph.

Landing fees are retained by the agency that owns the airport.  They pay
operating expenses and my bond interest.

There is an aviation fuel tax, plus a ticket tax that goes into a "trust
fund" within the federal government.  Money rarely leaves this fund for any
reason...the bureaucrats used it to camouflage the extent of the defecit for
years.  Ostensibly it is for grants to improve operational safety and the
like.  The FAA has its own budget, including Air Traffic Control.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred W.
Schneider III
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 5:22 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: (no subject)


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.