Amtrak
Wil
On Wednesday Nov. 5th I was traveling on Amtrak between Philadelphia and
Wilmington (only a twenty minute ride) during that brief ride I struck up
a conversation with the gentleman who was attending the cafe car. I
started the conversation off my mentioning Amtrak financial situation and
how many people believe one of the many ways to remedy that situation is
trim the employee role and change the work rules. His answer greatly
surprised me when he mentioned that is not a bad idea but were needs to
be cut is the management role. He told me when he started in Amtrak about
20 years ago there were only 4 people between him and Head of Food
Services Now there was over 25 and he hasn’t been demoted and I believe
Amtrak service area is smaller now, he also mention 6 years ago there
were only 2 people in the whole organization that was making over
$200,000 now there is over 50.
Amtrak is your typical government agency top heavy with bosses.
KLiesse
In article <3463B1...@jpmorgan.com>, Wil
<gilliard...@jpmorgan.com> writes:
>Amtrak is your typical government agency top heavy with bosses.
>
>
Has nothing to do with the government. This is how big business works.
Ken
Tim O'Connor
George Conklin wrote:
> Big business has to make money to survive.
George, once again you have proved your mettle. Your
statement stands alone in the Internet wasteland, at
once simple, yet hard-edged, dripping with wisdom and
insight. Thank you, thank you, for sharing with us. My
esteem runneth over.
Michael Bilhartz
George Conklin wrote in message <647ric$pnj$1...@nina.pagesz.net>...
> Big business has to make money to survive.
>
Some big businesses make money by selling a product or service to the
federal government. Government subsidy does not determine whether it is a
business or not. Pick another issue, occasionally you make some good
points.
Regards,
-Mike Bilhartz
George Conklin
In article <34677A...@avici.com>, Tim O'Connor <toco...@avici.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> Big business has to make money to survive.
>
>statement stands alone in the Internet wasteland, at
>once simple, yet hard-edged, dripping with wisdom and
>insight. Thank you, thank you, for sharing with us. My
>esteem runneth over.
If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
down. It nees to pay full operating costs, plus a $3 PFC
per rider, and a 10% tax on top of that to pay for
improvements. It needs to pay for 100% of the capital needs
for rolling stock and roadbed improvements. If there is a
market for the 30-50 cent per mile travel which will result,
so be it. If not, so be it.
Stas...@ix.netcom.com
Most businesses are not run by Congress. Amtrak is. Haven't you read the
news lately? They're getting more tax money and Congress is making some
changes in the way Amtrak oeprates.
George Conklin
In article <19971110194...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
KLiesse <kli...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <3463B1...@jpmorgan.com>, Wil
><gilliard...@jpmorgan.com> writes:
>
>>Amtrak is your typical government agency top heavy with bosses.
>>
>>
>
>Has nothing to do with the government. This is how big business works.
>
Tim O'Connor
George Conklin wrote:
> If there is a market for the 30-50 cent per mile travel
> which will result, so be it. If not, so be it.
Gosh, George, not only are you the smartest man on the planet,
but you can even declare the terms of Amtrak's existence with
just a wave of your enormously powerful hand. I am awestricken!
Too bad the U.S. Senate totally disagrees with you. Methinks
you should run for President and put an end to the nonsense,
once and for all!
Your friend and deepest admirer.
Rich Neitzel
In article <6481gp$18s$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net
> If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
> down. It nees to pay full operating costs, plus a $3 PFC
> per rider, and a 10% tax on top of that to pay for
> improvements. It needs to pay for 100% of the capital needs
> market for the 30-50 cent per mile travel which will result,
> so be it. If not, so be it.
Or declare bankruptcy so it can continue to operate while losing
money, like an airline. Or get a government bailout, like a certain
mahjor US auto maker did. Or have the government impose import quotas
like many major industries.
--
Richard Neitzel th...@atd.ucar.edu Torren med sitt skjegg
National Center For Atmospheric Research lokkar borni under sole-vegg
Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307-3000 Gjø'i med sitt shinn
303-497-2057 jagar borni inn.
George Conklin
In article <649rlv$ik9$1...@ncar.ucar.edu>,
Rich Neitzel <th...@ymir.atd.ucar.edu> wrote:
>In article <6481gp$18s$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net
>(George Conklin) writes:
>> If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
>> down. It nees to pay full operating costs, plus a $3 PFC
>> per rider, and a 10% tax on top of that to pay for
>> improvements. It needs to pay for 100% of the capital needs
>> for rolling stock and roadbed improvements. If there is a
>> market for the 30-50 cent per mile travel which will result,
>> so be it. If not, so be it.
>
>Or declare bankruptcy so it can continue to operate while losing
>money, like an airline. Or get a government bailout, like a certain
>mahjor US auto maker did. Or have the government impose import quotas
>like many major industries.
>
>
back its bailout. When will Amtrak?
And the bankrupt airlines have quit flying, as in
Eastern, Braniff and so forth.
Rich Neitzel
In article <649urt$rri$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net
> And the bankrupt airlines have quit flying, as in
> Eastern, Braniff and so forth.
Really, I could swear that Western Pacific is flying right now. So are
a number of other bankrupt airlines. Shall we also mention that it
took years of loses for the airlines you mentioned to die. Or list
airlines that survired bankrupty. Nor are airlines unique in
this. Many large and small for profit companies continue to do
business while losing money, without going out of business.
George Conklin
In article <649vuu$8...@snews2.zippo.com>,
Michael Bilhartz <bilh...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote in message <6481gp$18s$1...@nina.pagesz.net>...
>
>> If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
>>down. It nees to pay full operating costs, plus a $3 PFC
>>per rider, and a 10% tax on top of that to pay for
>>improvements. It needs to pay for 100% of the capital needs
>>for rolling stock and roadbed improvements. If there is a
>>market for the 30-50 cent per mile travel which will result,
>>so be it. If not, so be it.
>>
>
>doesn't make money does not mean that it should be shut down. On the
>contrary, our representative democracy has decided otherwise.
>
>The function of a government is to spend money
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
According to you. And on Amtrak, it is fulfilling this
'duty' you assign to government. But it might just as well
waste it on something productive.
George Conklin
In article <64aggo$5n5$1...@noao.tuc.noao.edu>,
Lee Groves <gro...@noao.edu> wrote:
>From article <6481gp$18s$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, by hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin):
>>
>> If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
>> down.
>
>subways, all of them.
>
The fares should be raised to cover the true cost in all
cases.
Lee Groves
From article <6481gp$18s$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, by hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin):
>
> If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
> down.
By this logic, every form of public transportation should be shut down. City Busses,
subways, all of them.
No one addressed this last time I mentioned it, but where is it written that something
has to be "profitable" in order to serve the public good? --or that if something *is*
profitable, it benefits society? Prozac sales are profitable, but does that mean
that the more people who take it, the better society must be? (A point which I
read in an essay)
Lee
Frank W. Bryan
> Ultimately, your argument is philosophical, that
> you feel that providing transportation services is outside of the
legitimate
> purpose of government...
> -Mike Bilhartz
Yes, the argument is philosophical, more specifically ethical. People must
agree on ethics before they can ever agree on politics. And the operative
ethical argument here is that:
No one may initiate the use of force or fraud to obtain value.
No one means not one person (e.g., a mugger), a group of people (e.g., a
mob) or a government of people (e.g., a democracy).
>...and you are entitled to that opinion...
If he is "entitled to that opinion", what gives you the right to *force*
him to pay for yours?
>...but I don't think it is a philosophical issue for most people.
True enough. And this is the root of the problem. fwb
Lee Groves ,44,357
From article <64aii8$k36$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, by hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin):
>>>
>>> If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
>>> down.
>>
>>By this logic, every form of public transportation should be shut down. City Busses,
>>subways, all of them.
>>
> cases.
This is *really* scary to hear.
That might work in New York City, but in place like here in Tucson, it would be
a disaster. The current bus fare is 85 cents. Most of the people riding the bus
are either students, or the working poor who are at least *trying* to support
themselves.
Raising the rate to the true cost (which would mean doubling the fares) would force
a lot of people to loose their jobs, (more people on welfare, which then gets paid
for with taxes) or puts wage pressure on the employers. (higher prices to all of us.)
All the students that ride the busses would either have to be subsidized by the
district (the tax just gets shifted) or would drop out. (back to the welfare problem)
The service sector slave labor needs to be able to get to work or there will be no
one to flip the burgers at lunchtime. --and that will make the Suits very unhappy.
George, what DO you consider valid uses of tax money? What government projects do
you beleive serve the public good?
Answering these is vital to preserving any credibility. Otherwise you're just an
anti-government wacko...
Lee
Merritt Mullen
Stas...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Most businesses are not run by Congress. Amtrak is. Haven't you read the
> news lately? They're getting more tax money and Congress is making some
> changes in the way Amtrak oeprates.
The changes Congress is making are to remove contraints on the way
Amtrak can operate that Congress imposed when Amtrak was created in
1971. One change will remove (from Amtrak, but not the freight RRs) the
Congress-imposed requirement that certain laid-off employees be paid for
up to six years after they are terminated (note that this change, while
good, is mainly symbolic as this provision is only rarely used).
Another change will remove the Congress-imposed restriction on
contracting out.
Removing Congressional restrictions on Amtrak is a good idea, not an
example of Congress meddling in Amtrak's business affairs.
Merritt
Michael Bilhartz
George Conklin wrote in message <6481gp$18s$1...@nina.pagesz.net>...
> If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
>down. It nees to pay full operating costs, plus a $3 PFC
>per rider, and a 10% tax on top of that to pay for
>improvements. It needs to pay for 100% of the capital needs
>for rolling stock and roadbed improvements. If there is a
>market for the 30-50 cent per mile travel which will result,
>so be it. If not, so be it.
>
There is no self-evident truth in your thesis. The mere fact that it
doesn't make money does not mean that it should be shut down. On the
contrary, our representative democracy has decided otherwise.
The function of a government is to spend money to provide the people it
represents with services, and a government's legitimacy correlates
positively with how its spending corresponds to the will of the people.
There is considerable evidence that Americans want Amtrak, so regardless of
whether it loses money or not, or whether it is privatized or not, Americans
may continue to want it to be subsidized, just as we subsidize the armed
forces or social security (which I suspect you don't like as well, and that
also doesn't matter).
So, you see, your arguments that it loses money, or that it should not be
subsidized, or that air travel is more cost efficient, are irrelevant if the
American people want it, and most of your discussion in this forum is
pointless. Instead of telling us here that the fact that it loses money is
a reason to shut it down, you should be telling the American people why we
should want to shutdown something that loses money, and that is going to be
a very difficult argument. Ultimately, your argument is philosophical, that
you feel that providing transportation services is outside of the legitimate
purpose of government, and you are entitled to that opinion, but I don't
think it is a philosophical issue for most people. I think that most people
just simply want to continue to have the option of rail travel, even if they
don't exercise it, and they have let their elected representatives know that
they will hold them responsible if they lose that option.
Regards,
-Mike Bilhartz
HaRRy
On 11 Nov 1997 16:26:32 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
expounded:
»>By this logic, every form of public transportation should be shut down. City Busses,
»>subways, all of them.
»>
» The fares should be raised to cover the true cost in all
»cases.
»
Ah, another demonstration of your naivate and lack of elementary knowledge
about this subject.
Fares are set to match a sort of "happy medium". They are set as high as they
can be to attract the maximum number of riders. If set higher, the number of
riders falls and the overall revenue falls. If set lower, the ridership may
rise, but again the overall revenue falls. There is a "break even point" at
which most transit fares are set so as to maximize farebox revenue.
I'm surprised that you can offer all of your many opinions here and not know
this elementary fact of transportation economics. Well, maybe not very
surprised considering some of the other claptrap you spout off.
And just to comment on your next stupid reply: Transportation (all types) is
infrastructure -- as much a function of government to supply as are a national
defense system and a national education system, and others. The massive
subsidies for highways and air transportation are justifiable -- as are large
subsidies for other forms of transportation including all passenger rail -- as
basic functions of government acting on behalf of society as a whole.
Anything else would be total anarchy.
George Conklin
In article <64aq7j$1c4$1...@noao.tuc.noao.edu>,
Lee Groves ,44,357 <gro...@noao.edu> wrote:
>From article <64aii8$k36$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, by hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin):
>> In article <64aggo$5n5$1...@noao.tuc.noao.edu>,
>> Lee Groves <gro...@noao.edu> wrote:
>>>From article <6481gp$18s$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, by hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin):
>>>>
>>>> down.
>>>
>>>subways, all of them.
>>>
>> The fares should be raised to cover the true cost in all
>> cases.
>
>
>That might work in New York City, but in place like here in Tucson, it would be
>a disaster. The current bus fare is 85 cents. Most of the people riding the bus
>are either students, or the working poor who are at least *trying* to support
>themselves.
So the sole purpose of transit is as a welfare substitution?
Glad you admitted it. Otherwise, it serves no useful purpose.
The poor would be better off having the right to use $1 vans, the
kind of transit outlawed now by money-hungry municipalities.
George Conklin
In article <3476f9cf...@news.prodigy.net>,
HaRRy <rail...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On 11 Nov 1997 16:26:32 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
>expounded:
>
>»>subways, all of them.
>»>
>» The fares should be raised to cover the true cost in all
>»cases.
>
>Ah, another demonstration of your naivate and lack of elementary knowledge
>about this subject.
>
>Fares are set to match a sort of "happy medium". They are set as high as they
>can be to attract the maximum number of riders. If set higher, the number of
>riders falls and the overall revenue falls. If set lower, the ridership may
>rise, but again the overall revenue falls. There is a "break even point" at
>which most transit fares are set so as to maximize farebox revenue.
>
>I'm surprised that you can offer all of your many opinions here and not know
>this elementary fact of transportation economics. Well, maybe not very
>surprised considering some of the other claptrap you spout off.
Fares are set by politics. Cities outlawed the common jitney
(as in Miami Jitney and $1 vans), which would operate without an
operating subsidy.
And those old bus routes take people downtown, not to where
the new jobs are.
Lee Groves
From article <64c9rk$mon$0...@206.66.160.2>, by jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net (George Conklin):
> In article <64aq7j$1c4$1...@noao.tuc.noao.edu>,
>
> So the sole purpose of transit is as a welfare substitution?
> Glad you admitted it.
No, I just pointed out one simple reason not to raise the fare so that
all your neurons didn't have to fire at once...
Transit should also be priced and scheduled to make it an attractive alternative
to autos. Unfortunately we don't teach our children to do anything socially
responsible, so we are left to having to bribe people into doing the right thing.
> Otherwise, it serves no useful purpose.
My wife doesn't drive. Never has. We're anything BUT poor. She rides the bus.
It picks up 1 block from our house and that route gets her to work and to
two college campuses.
I would like to get rid of my cars. They are economically and environmentally
expensive. (And I'm driving newer, efficient, clean vehicles) I'm looking
seriously at an EV1. (whoops! That is another subsidized program...)
> The poor would be better off having the right to use $1 vans, the
> kind of transit outlawed now by money-hungry municipalities.
Uhhhh.... Where are you going to find *anyone* to run a van for $1 fares?
Tucson is doing something close, though: On lower ridership routes, they are
using modified vans as part of the bus system. Oh, and they're running a lot
of compressed natural gas busses, too.
___
What about the High school students that get to class on the city busses?
You'd rather the district have a separate fleet that sits idle 90% of the time?
George, for the *THIRD* time I ask: What *do* you consider valid use of taxpayer
money?
Lee
Frank W. Bryan
Michael Bilhartz wrote:
> Your argument here is very good but distorts the purpose of government.
> The purpose of our government is considered to be to 'provide for the
common
> good'. In order to provide for the common good it may sometimes be
> necessary to force individuals to contribute to the common good against
> their will.
Sounds like a description of a socialist state, democratic or not.
It is not my intention here to get into a debate of common good vs.
individual freedom. Such a debate belongs in a philosophical news group;
Amtrak is only one of many examples. My point was that when one advocates
that taxpayers should subsidize Amtrak, there are underlying ethical issues
which must be addressed by any intellectually honest advocate. (Pragmatism
is not a valid excuse or evasion.)
fwb
Michael Bilhartz
George Conklin wrote in message <64adrd$qd8$0...@206.66.160.2>...
>>
>>The function of a government is to spend money
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> According to you. And on Amtrak, it is fulfilling this
>'duty' you assign to government. But it might just as well
>waste it on something productive.
>
I didn't say 'duty', I said function. Please quote me correctly. Your
misquotation carries with it an implication that is absolutely inaccurate.
Even the most extreme libertarian view of government recognizes that there
are some functions that must be provided by government (you're not an
anarchist, are you?). A government executes even these barest necessities
by spending money. Ergo, indirectly, the function of a government is to
spend money. And most political scientists would agree with me.
Perhaps in addition to being an anarchist, you feel that your views are
better than everyone else's and should be forceably imposed. As I pointed
out in my last post, most people feel that Amtrak IS productive and they
require that their elected representatives continue to support it. This may
change at some point in the future, and you may be able to help influence
such a change. In the meantime your contention that Amtrak is unproductive
is simply untrue: Its purpose is to provide rail travel. It accomplishes
its purpose. It is therefore productive (not necessarily efficient).
Regards,
-Mike Bilhartz
Michael Bilhartz
Frank W. Bryan wrote in message <01bceed4$8cb0b680$LocalHost@vogmudet>...
>> Ultimately, your argument is philosophical, that
>> you feel that providing transportation services is outside of the
>legitimate
>> purpose of government...
>> -Mike Bilhartz
>
>Yes, the argument is philosophical, more specifically ethical. People must
>agree on ethics before they can ever agree on politics. And the operative
>ethical argument here is that:
>
>No one may initiate the use of force or fraud to obtain value.
>
>No one means not one person (e.g., a mugger), a group of people (e.g., a
>mob) or a government of people (e.g., a democracy).
Your argument here is very good but distorts the purpose of government. The
purpose of our government is considered to be to 'provide for the common
good'. In order to provide for the common good it may sometimes be
necessary to force individuals to contribute to the common good against
their will. Unfortunately for those opposed to Amtrak, our representative
democracy has determined that rail service is for the common good. (In a
non-democratic form of government, it would provide for the good of a
non-majority, and no, we're not talking about who uses Amtrak, we're talking
about who wants it.)
>
>>...and you are entitled to that opinion...
>
>If he is "entitled to that opinion", what gives you the right to *force*
>him to pay for yours?
I am not forcing him to do anything, and BTW, you don't actually know what
my opinion is about Amtrak.
The only non 'forceful' alternative is complete anarchy. Even the most
libertarian democracy will force SOME people to support SOME progams that
they do not like with their tax dollars. I think that we will all agree
that a non-democratic government is going to be even more 'forceful'.
>
>>...but I don't think it is a philosophical issue for most people.
>
>True enough. And this is the root of the problem.
Why is it a problem? It only demonstrates the often pragmatic nature of
people's needs. They want government to support the things that they want
it to support.
Regards,
-Mike Bilhartz
dave pierson
>> Your argument here is very good but distorts the purpose of government.
>> The purpose of our government is considered to be to 'provide for the
>common
>> good'. In order to provide for the common good it may sometimes be
>> necessary to force individuals to contribute to the common good against
>> their will.
>Sounds like a description of a socialist state, democratic or not.
Scialist it may or may not be, i am not competent to judge.
The language is from either the US Declaration of Independence
or from the US Constitution. (Who may have borrowed it from
elsewhere...)
>It is not my intention here to get into a debate of common good vs.
>individual freedom. Such a debate belongs in a philosophical news group;
indeed.
thanks
dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own.
334 South St |
Shrewbury, Mass USA pie...@gone.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles
George Conklin
In article <64eu2v$6d0$1...@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>,
dave pierson <pie...@gone.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>>> Your argument here is very good but distorts the purpose of government.
>>> The purpose of our government is considered to be to 'provide for the
>>common
>>> good'. In order to provide for the common good it may sometimes be
>>> necessary to force individuals to contribute to the common good against
>>> their will.
>
>>Sounds like a description of a socialist state, democratic or not.
> Scialist it may or may not be, i am not competent to judge.
> The language is from either the US Declaration of Independence
> or from the US Constitution. (Who may have borrowed it from
> elsewhere...)
>
no different from defining air travel as for 'the common
good' and then demanding that government give free airplanes
to Crandall to run American Airlines.
Merritt Mullen
George Conklin wrote:
>
> The need is to get from place to place for minimum cost,
> not to support some mode of transit. Government, using that
> logic, could support the pony express, stating that ponies
> required a high level of subsidy than rail.
Actually, the Pony Express was a private enterprise, but it only lasted
for about 18 months (1860/1861). Of course, until recently the
government DID support the US Postal Service, and, although we know you
disagree, most Americans thought that providing postal services was a
proper role for the the federal government. The Postal Service now
operates totally without government subsidy. According to Congress,
Amtrak must achieve the same status.
Merritt
George Conklin
In article <346BEE...@ridgecrest.ca.us>,
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> The need is to get from place to place for minimum cost,
>> not to support some mode of transit. Government, using that
>> logic, could support the pony express, stating that ponies
>> required a high level of subsidy than rail.
>
>Actually, the Pony Express was a private enterprise, but it only lasted
>for about 18 months (1860/1861).
How sad. It should become part of Amtrak and be given a
subsidy in order to preserve the 'choice' of moving mail by
horse. After all, every obsolete technology deserves its
subsidy.
Lee Groves
From article <64gcsb$tck$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, by hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin):
> In article <346BB5...@ridgecrest.ca.us>,
> Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>>It is just that different forms of transportation
>>(highway, pipeline, river, rail, air, maritime, etc) have different
>>needs in terms of government support.
>>
>>Merritt
>
> The need is to get from place to place for minimum cost,
No!!! That is *not* the only criteria.
You *have* to include safety, confort, and convenience.
(The last includes travel time) All of these factors
weigh against one another. You can not quantify one mode
as being better than another for all individuals. That
is why a mixture of modes best suits society.
Lee
George Conklin
In article <346C8D...@execpc.com>, Doug Smith <mus...@execpc.com> wrote:
>And Smitty replies:
>
> Wow, George, I've seen the light!!! Let's line up all of those 747's
>at Kenosha Airport so that people can commute to downtown Chicago or
Drivel posted by you does not change the fact that
passenger rail transit is not coming back into vogue.
People don't go downtown much any more and they can take the
old trains....if the city can afford the steady tax drain of
subsidizing obsolete systems.
Doug Smith
And Smitty replies (with a straight face):
Well, George, Chicago continues to plan for expansion of its Metra
system. Thousands of people daily commute into downtown Chicago on
those "old trains" to work at law offices, the Merc, or the Board of
Trade. BTW, the new Metra cab cars (ADA-equipped) run $1.3 million
apiece and the rebuilds of the ex-C&NW cars run about $330,000 each.
They are both nice cars. And Metra, unlike Amtrak, only covers 55% of
its operating costs from the fare box, compared to about 77% for
Amtrak. Get it straight, son, Raleigh-Durham or Winston-Salem or
wherever in North Carolina you're from is NOT Chicago-Milwaukee and
doesn't even compare. Chicago/Cook County feels that putting money into
Metra is well spent. They also continue to upgrade CTA (both bus and
rail) as well as putting money into highway maintenance. But, hey, the
people up here are obviously stupid and behind the times. Oh, yeah,
look into the Wall Street Journal article somebody posted on
bit.listserv.railroad, concerning commuter air operations. Somebody
needs to tell Amtrak and Metra they can make a killing on the
Chicago-Milwaukee market if they get off their butts and go after the
traffic. And I'll still tell you from firsthand experience that we will
get you downtown quicker and cheaper than any other means, never mind
safer. George, we'd all like to see things from your point of view, but
for most of us that's a physically impossible position to assume.
Smitty
Doug Smith
And Smitty replies:
Wow, George, I've seen the light!!! Let's line up all of those 747's
at Kenosha Airport so that people can commute to downtown Chicago or
travel out to Fargo, ND. That's the ticket!! But in the meantime, why
is TWA flying 26 year-old 747's that come apart in the air? And why is
Philadelphia paying $50,000,000.00 (that's fifty million dollars, BTW)
for an upgrade to its airport if the airlines are so profitable and are
paying their own way? And WHAT THE #%@%$R$^%@ is a PFC (besides private
first class)??? Inquiring minds want to know.........(this is SO fun!!)
Terry Fry
On 14 Nov 1997 13:41:50 -0500, George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
> Drivel posted by you does not change the fact that
>passenger rail transit is not coming back into vogue.
>People don't go downtown much any more and they can take the
>old trains....if the city can afford the steady tax drain of
>subsidizing obsolete systems.
What would you suggest? Do you really think that air travel
will become the predominate short haul passenger carrier
of the future?
Would it suprise you that UPS, USPS, Fedex, and other freight
air systems have been quitely diverting volume from air channels
to the ground (read rail)?
I suspect the true cost of travel by rail over the highly
utilized NEC vs. the true cost of travel via air might
be significantly lower.
One day, its just going to cost too much to fly.
Juhana Siren
jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net (George Conklin) writes:
> And those old bus routes take people downtown, not to where
> the new jobs are.
Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a bus company that
doesn't adjust its routes to suit the needs of the users (with common
sense, of course) is a bad bus company.
--
Juhana Siren (Mr.) - Juhana...@oulu.fi - http://rieska.oulu.fi/~jsiren/
==========================================================================
George Conklin
In article <346D0B...@ix.netcom.com>, kz <ken....@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <346C8D...@execpc.com>, Doug Smith <mus...@execpc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Wow, George, I've seen the light!!! Let's line up all of those 747's
>> >at Kenosha Airport so that people can commute to downtown Chicago or
>>
>> passenger rail transit is not coming back into vogue.
>> People don't go downtown much any more and they can take the
>> old trains....if the city can afford the steady tax drain of
>> subsidizing obsolete systems.
>
>airport improvements? Why is that needed if the airlines are making so
>much money?
>
There is no need for taxpayers to put a penny into any
airport today. They can be easily privatized and turn a
large profit. If Philadelpha is smart, they would do that
and let the airport pay taxes, like they are doing in
Australia.
George Conklin
In article <346D23...@execpc.com>, Doug Smith <mus...@execpc.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <346C8D...@execpc.com>, Doug Smith <mus...@execpc.com> wrote:
>> >And Smitty replies:
>> >
>> > Wow, George, I've seen the light!!! Let's line up all of those 747's
>> >at Kenosha Airport so that people can commute to downtown Chicago or
>>
>> Drivel posted by you does not change the fact that
>> passenger rail transit is not coming back into vogue.
>> People don't go downtown much any more and they can take the
>> old trains....if the city can afford the steady tax drain of
>> subsidizing obsolete systems.
>
>
> Well, George, Chicago continues to plan for expansion of its Metra
>system.
Transit is being used for political purposes to make
obsolete land locations more valuable for political reasons.
Billions in public money are spent doing this. It does not
make the nation a better place to transport poor people to
where the jobs were in 1920, and to cut them off from viable
jobs in newer areas, as Chicago continues to do.
Doug Smith
Merritt Mullen wrote:
> I can't put my hands on it at the moment, but a recent RR magazine had
> an article on the planned upgrade of the Chicago-Milwaukee line for
> frequent, 100 mph passenger service.
And Smitty replies:
Yeah, but they need to expand service north of Kenosha, not just out on
the ex-Milwaukee Road line. The bulk of the people live closer to Lake
Michigan, and the CP line serves towns like Sturtevant, which is not
exactly a great population center. Unfortunately, the Kenosha Sub
passes through what is now an extremely bad neighborhood in Racine, one
which needs some serious cleaning up. If I were commuting to Chicago or
Milwaukee, I'd feel very insecure about parking a car at the present
station in Racine. IIRC, even the USPS is moving away from that
location. Whatever, I caught a scoot into downtown Chicago a couple of
Fridays ago (the 5:49 p.m. departure from Kenosha) and I was absolutely
amazed at the amount of people that got off of it when it arrived at
Kenosha at 5:39 p.m. There must have been close to one hundred people.
There is much potential here. But, hey, let's just pack 'em all in
747's......:) What they really need is the North Shore Line, but that's
a whole 'nuther story.
Smitty
Merritt Mullen
George Conklin wrote:
>
> Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> >I wonder why foreigners are so smart, and Americans so stupid? As far
> >as I know there are exactly zero airports in the US that are, or are
> >planning to be, privatized (I could be wrong--often am--if you know of
> >any, George, please let us know).
> There are several,
Are their locations being kept secret? Can you give us a hint?
> but as Jane's points out, we lag the
> the world in airport privatization.
I guess so, since it appears we have zero privately-owned (commercial)
airports.
> But that is not the point. Airports produce their own
> revenue and need zero from other sources.
Which is why one wonders why there is no movement to privatize them.
Merritt
Doug Smith
George Conklin wrote:
> Transit is being used for political purposes to make
> obsolete land locations more valuable for political reasons.
> Billions in public money are spent doing this. It does not
> make the nation a better place to transport poor people to
> where the jobs were in 1920, and to cut them off from viable
> jobs in newer areas, as Chicago continues to do.
And Smitty says:
Excuse me? If the folks coming out of Lake Forest and Lake Bluff are
poor, please let me join their ranks. I've never seen poor people
wearing expensive suits and driving expensive cars, and this is a large
percentage of the passengers we board on the North Line. I'm convinced
of one thing, George: you need to get out more. Oh, BTW, we also
transport many domestic workers in the opposite direction to go to work
in the homes of these poor, unfortunate souls who live in poverty on the
North Shore. God forbid that Metra and CTA should shut down. The Dan
Ryan and Kennedy Expressways could never handle the traffic. They're at
capacity now as it is. And the jobs that existed in 1920 are not
necessarily the jobs that exist today. Oh, if the Board of Trade, the
Merc, or the other firms were to get out of those "obsolete land
locations," where would you suggest they be located? And what should be
done with all of those obsolete buildings downtown, such as the Sears
Tower? I'm breathlessly awaiting your answer.
Smitty
Merritt Mullen
George Conklin wrote:
>
> There is no need for taxpayers to put a penny into any
> airport today. They can be easily privatized and turn a
> large profit. If Philadelpha is smart, they would do that
> and let the airport pay taxes, like they are doing in
> Australia.
I wonder why foreigners are so smart, and Americans so stupid? As far
as I know there are exactly zero airports in the US that are, or are
planning to be, privatized (I could be wrong--often am--if you know of
any, George, please let us know).
What is your opinion, George, of why American airports are not being
privatized?
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
George Conklin wrote:
>
> Transit is being used for political purposes to make
> obsolete land locations more valuable for political reasons.
What better expenditure of public funds is there than that which makes
property more valuable and creates wealth for its citizens? And isn't
(by definition) everything done by the government done for "political"
reasons? If the government isn't acting "politically", it isn't doing
its job.
Merrian-Webster defines "political" as: "Of or relating to government,
a government, or the conduct of a government."
And, by the way, I would also hope they act in a "politically correct"
way (and not in the corrupted usage of that phrase).
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Doug Smith wrote:
>
> Somebody
> needs to tell Amtrak and Metra they can make a killing on the
> Chicago-Milwaukee market if they get off their butts and go after the
> traffic. And I'll still tell you from firsthand experience that we will
> get you downtown quicker and cheaper than any other means, never mind
> safer.
I can't put my hands on it at the moment, but a recent RR magazine had
an article on the planned upgrade of the Chicago-Milwaukee line for
frequent, 100 mph passenger service.
Merritt
Bonnie Bucqueroux
In article <64f2at$562$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net÷ says...
Lee Winson
> George Conklin wrote:
> >
> > There is no need for taxpayers to put a penny into any
> > airport today. They can be easily privatized and turn a
> > large profit. If Philadelpha is smart, they would do that
> > and let the airport pay taxes, like they are doing in
> > Australia.
Well, Philadelphia is pouring $50 of the taxpayer's general fund
money into the airport.
Bob Scheurle
George Conklin wrote:
> Transit is being used for political purposes to make
> obsolete land locations more valuable for political reasons.
But not anywhere near the Billions and Billions and Billions in public
money used to build highways and airports in obsolete lands.
> It does not
> make the nation a better place to transport poor people to
> where the jobs were in 1920, and to cut them off from viable
> jobs in newer areas, as Chicago continues to do.
First of all, employment in Manhattan in increasing and every
prediction has it continuing to increase in the foreseeable future.
There are jobs in the City and there will continue to be jobs in the
City. NJ Transit ridership is going up, up, up. Some trains are
carrying over 1500 people. So please explain how there aren't any
jobs there.
Second, George, you're contradicting yourself again. Earlier you said
"Commuter rail lines are a subsidy for the rich". Well, which is it?
Are we moving the poor people or the rich people?
--
Bob Scheurle | "Trying to reduce congestion by
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net | widening the highway is like trying
sche...@z-avionics-z.itt.com | to address obesity by loosening
http://www.eclipse.net/~scheurle | your belt." -- Drew Kodjak, NJPIRG
Bob Scheurle
hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>Airports produce their own revenue and need zero from other sources.
Then why is the FAA subsidized to the tune of $8 Billion per year?
--
Bob Scheurle | "I say, either agree with me or
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net | take a hike! I'm right, period!
sche...@z-avionics-z.itt.com | End of discussion!"
http://www.eclipse.net/~scheurle | -- Calvin (not Hobbes)
George Conklin
In article <34712347...@news.eclipse.net>,
Bob Scheurle <sche...@z-eclipse-z.net> wrote:
>hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>>
>>>Then why is the FAA subsidized to the tune of $8 Billion per year?
>>
>>subsidy. And a good bit of that money is not spent to
>>reduce the deficit.
>
>The $8 Billion comes from general revenues. Even from people who
>never go near an airport.
And the billions spent by air passengers used to reduce
the debt is paid by those who do.
>>Subsidies to small airports should become a local option.
>>Large airports generate their own revenues and should start
>>paying taxes. The FAA could be abolished tomorrow, and ATC
>>privatized. Your commercial ticket prices would remain
>>unchanged.
>
>Yeah, right.
>
>--
>Bob Scheurle | "I say, either agree with me or
Privatize the airports, like is happening all over the
world. Then watch what happens: nothing.
The increased efficiency would pay for itself so fast
your air tickets would go down. Having government in ATC is
dysfunctional now.
George Conklin
In article <346e711a...@news.eclipse.net>,
Bob Scheurle <sche...@z-eclipse-z.net> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>> Transit is being used for political purposes to make
>> obsolete land locations more valuable for political reasons.
>> Billions in public money are spent doing this.
>
>But not anywhere near the Billions and Billions and Billions in public
>money used to build highways and airports in obsolete lands.
>
dollar, with over 80% on the other modes of transit.
Doug Smith
George Conklin wrote:
> And the billions spent by air passengers used to reduce
> the debt is paid by those who do.
And Smitty replies:
Say again all after...........
J Warsher
George Conklin says he believes that:
> >Airports produce their own revenue and need zero from other sources.
>Bob Scheurle then wrote:
> Then why is the FAA subsidized to the tune of $8 Billion per year?
That's only the beginning. The air/highway lobby objected to the Army
training the railroads personnel "free of charge" so the Transportation
Corps railroad at Ft Eustis, VA was abandoned. Now that there is less
need to protect our country from invasion, the main reason the military
aviation services exist is to provide trained personnel "free of charge"
for the airlines.
--
JimW (opinions are mine alone; I do not speak for anyone else nor am I
authorized to speak for anyone else)
Randy Treadway
>>That's only the beginning. The air/highway lobby objected to the Army
>>training the railroads personnel "free of charge" so the Transportation
>>Corps railroad at Ft Eustis, VA was abandoned. Now that there is less
>>need to protect our country from invasion, the main reason the military
>>aviation services exist is to provide trained personnel "free of charge"
>>for the airlines.
Using that line of thinking, I guess the U.S. Government just invented
WWII in order to "jump start" an airline industry in this country.
Hitler was just a political flunky for TWA.
Maybe Pan Am provided campaign financing to get Mussolini into office
in the 20's, so that the U.S. would eventually have to fight to get him
back OUT of office, thereby providing the technology and crew training
for Pan Am's eventual worldwide dominance.
Right.
...excuse me, I've got Oliver Stone on the other line...
R.T.
Merritt Mullen
George Conklin wrote:
>
> On a per passenger basis, transit returns 33 cents on the
> dollar, with over 80% on the other modes of transit.
George, this is NOT the urban transit newsgroup. If you want to talk
about intercity rail passenger service, Amtrak recovers about 80% of
operating costs from ticket revenue. This number has been increasing
over the years, and is planned to be 100% by 2002.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
George Conklin wrote:
>
> Pilots who don't get military training have to pay for
> their own training through tuition, just like an ordinary
> student. In any case, airlines are not going to put you
> through school, so it is of zero importance to them who does
> the first level of training.
And to further correct some mis-statements on this group, of the $9.1
billion of federal aviation funding (for 1998), about 73% comes from
user fees (per 1994 DOT figures). That means the aviation subsidy from
the general funds is "only" about $2.5 billion annually.
The other mis-statement I saw recently was that airlines do not pay fuel
taxes. The airlines DO pay fuel taxes and that revenue goes into the
aviation trust fund. I think this misconception comes from a period
when the airlines were exempt from the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax
which was dedicated to deficit reduction (whereas all other modes,
including Amtrak, were paying the tax). This has been corrected and the
"deficit reduction" tax is now paid by everyone, but it no longer goes
to deficit reduction, except for the taxes paid by the RRs, including
Amtrak. The fuel taxes paid by the airline and highway users go to the
respective trust funds.
If any of the above is incorrect, please straighten me out.
Merritt
Sky King
Michael Bilhartz <bilh...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
> George Conklin wrote in message <6481gp$18s$1...@nina.pagesz.net>...
>> If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
>>down. It nees to pay full operating costs, plus a $3 PFC
SNIP
> There is no self-evident truth in your thesis. The mere fact that it
> doesn't make money does not mean that it should be shut down. On the
> contrary, our representative democracy has decided otherwise.
> The function of a government is to spend money to provide the people it
> represents with services, and a government's legitimacy correlates
> positively with how its spending corresponds to the will of the people.
Snip
Mike: Excellent comment!!!
Best regards,
Sky
--
*****************************************************
"Everyone is born left-handed. You turn right-handed
when you commit your first sin"
*****************************************************
George Conklin
In article <3470F5...@ridgecrest.ca.us>,
In addition, airports put fuel flowage surcharges on to
cover local operating costs.
Doug Smith
And Smitty adds:
Metra's published figure (from the latest "Bilevel") is that they cover
55% of their operating costs from the collection of fares. But, yes,
the last figure I saw for Amtrak was 77%, which give or take, is close
to 80%.
Lee Groves
From article <64stb1$2v3$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, by hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin):
>
> It makes no difference to the airline who does the
> preliminary training. Zilch.
Really? Then why were the Air Force and Navy having to offer up big
re-enlistment bonuses to hang on to pilots? --While people trained on
the civilian side have a hard time finding jobs?
Lee
George Conklin
In article <64suvt$qhe$1...@noao.tuc.noao.edu>,
No difference to the air carriers. They would ask pilots
to come to them with the 2,000 hours, just like they do now.
Doug Smith
George Conklin wrote:
>
> No difference to the air carriers. They would ask pilots
> to come to them with the 2,000 hours, just like they do now.
And Smitty replies:
Yeah, but Lee stated, and it has also been in the national news
reports, that the USAF and USN are having a hard time holding onto
pilots, because the air carriers are much more lucrative. Lee asserts
that pilots with non-military certification, on average, are having a
much more difficult time finding positions with the private air
carriers. So in essence, you just sidestepped his question and posted
your "fact." Gee, why am I not surprised?
KLiesse
In article <64q96k$s49$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
Conklin) writes:
> Pilots who don't get military training have to pay for
>their own training through tuition, just like an ordinary
>student. In any case, airlines are not going to put you
>through school, so it is of zero importance to them who does
>the first level of training.
>
>
Actually, it is quite important to them. Airlines are more apt to hire
you if you come with a license endorsed to fly multi-engine jets already,
and there aren't a lot of people who can afford to buy this type of
training (unless of course, they're the kids of those "poor underclassed
people" Smitty hauls to work everyday). The military does an excellent job
of doing this "basic" training for the airlines, but the airlines still
send their flight crews to school after being hired.
Ken
George Conklin
In article <19971118194...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
KLiesse <kli...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <64q96k$s49$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
>Conklin) writes:
>
>> Pilots who don't get military training have to pay for
>>their own training through tuition, just like an ordinary
>>student. In any case, airlines are not going to put you
>>through school, so it is of zero importance to them who does
>>the first level of training.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, it is quite important to them. Airlines are more apt to hire
>you if you come with a license
It makes no difference to the airline who does the
preliminary training. Zilch.
George Conklin
In article <64t96r$cl7$7...@darla.visi.com>,
Matthew J. Frahm <mfr...@tiny.net> wrote:
>George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
>> In article <64suvt$qhe$1...@noao.tuc.noao.edu>,
>> Lee Groves <gro...@noao.edu> wrote:
>>>From article <64stb1$2v3$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, by hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin):
>>>>
>>>> preliminary training. Zilch.
>>>
>>>re-enlistment bonuses to hang on to pilots? --While people trained on
>>>the civilian side have a hard time finding jobs?
>>>
>>>Lee
>
>> to come to them with the 2,000 hours, just like they do now.
>
>
Right now some work for close to minimum wage flying
around well-to-do owners of private planes to their
destinations. Others work in commuter airlines for about
$14,000 a year (less than a Raleigh bus driver). Otherwise
they just fly around picking up hours. Still there is a
waiting list to get with the majors and the unionized
workforce.
Stas...@ix.netcom.com
Lee Groves wrote:
>
> From article <64stb1$2v3$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, by hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin):
> >
> > It makes no difference to the airline who does the
> > preliminary training. Zilch.
>
> Really? Then why were the Air Force and Navy having to offer up big
> re-enlistment bonuses to hang on to pilots? --While people trained on
> the civilian side have a hard time finding jobs?
Not just for pilots, but other military jobs as well.
Randy Treadway
Doug Smith <mus...@execpc.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>> No difference to the air carriers. They would ask pilots
>> to come to them with the 2,000 hours, just like they do now.
>And Smitty replies:
> Yeah, but Lee stated, and it has also been in the national news
>reports, that the USAF and USN are having a hard time holding onto
>pilots, because the air carriers are much more lucrative. Lee asserts
>that pilots with non-military certification, on average, are having a
>much more difficult time finding positions with the private air
>carriers. So in essence, you just sidestepped his question and posted
>your "fact." Gee, why am I not surprised?
okay, no sidestepping.
The original thread suggested that the military has no reason to
train pilots after the cold war, but are kept going as an intentional
way to subsidize the airlines by giving them pilots already trained
in multi-engine aircraft operation.
This implies that the military does not have any legitimate mission
in today's world, or that they are intentionally training many more
pilots than they need, either to intentionally service the airlines,
or more likely, to face reality that they are having a hard time
keeping pilots after their minimum service time is up.
Why is this? Well, start with congress appropriating military
pay separately from other military costs. The Air Force would
love to keep their best pilots on board by paying them more, the
pay being more competitive with what the best commercial pilots
get. In fact, they'd be willing to shift money from other
categories (like training) to give some pilots special pay
dispensation. But Congress won't let them. Congress (and to
some extent the other services) argue that all military officers
are of equal value, according to rank, not according to category
of expertise. Military pilots already get 'flight pay' and sometimes
'hazardous duty' pay extras.
So what? Does anybody really suggest that if a pilot leaves
the Air Force before, say, 10 years of service, that the airline
he goes to work for should reimburse the federal government for the
cost of training?
Get real. Maybe, instead, the government should INCREASE their
minimum service commitment for pilots from six years up TO 10
years. That would make more sense. If he/she flies in combat,
then they could get extra credit for an 'early out'.
Now, let's get back to brass tacks. Why are railroaders so
intense in trying to argue that this is an UNFAIR subsidy?
Subsidy itself, in this case, is a very convaluted stretch,
but UNFAIR?
Let's assume I've proved my point, first of all, that the DoD
is not intentionally training pilots for the airlines as the
only reason for the military air services to exist.
Now, is there something unbalanced about training that the DoD
provides for aircraft operation, as compared to locomotive
operation? Certainly. And why is that?
Well, how bout technology? When was the last time a military
garrison came charging into battle on a train? Not recently.
Aircraft are quite potent as military weapons on the modern
battlefield, trains are not. Modern wars are built up,
fought, and 'gone back home' in four or five months.
Fast sealift and airlift are the only ways to support such
wars logistically, with limited back-home support from
commercial freight railroads. And aircraft are not only
logistics haulers for the military, aircraft are also
weapons delivery systems (yeh, I know, a DoD euphemism
for Mach 3 Killing Machines).
So the need to train DoD aircrews and not rail crews is
just a modern fact of life. Nothing unfair about it.
It's just reality.
P.S.- if U.P. or BNSF needs any special training on how
to handle special loads like M1 tanks or delicate explosives
cars, then the DoD should certainly pay for that training.
Are they not?
R.T.
Michael Bilhartz
Randy Treadway wrote in message <347348bf...@news.zippo.com>...
>okay, no sidestepping.
> . . .
>The Air Force would
>love to keep their best pilots on board by paying them more, the
>pay being more competitive with what the best commercial pilots
>get.
Not necessary, or helpful in reducing govt spending, for that matter,- just
make it less lucrative to switch. Being a military pilot is not that
miserable or bad paying of a job.
>In fact, they'd be willing to shift money from other
>categories (like training) to give some pilots special pay
>dispensation. But Congress won't let them. Congress (and to
>some extent the other services) argue that all military officers
>are of equal value, according to rank, not according to category
>of expertise. Military pilots already get 'flight pay' and sometimes
>'hazardous duty' pay extras.
>
>So what? Does anybody really suggest that if a pilot leaves
>the Air Force before, say, 10 years of service, that the airline
>he goes to work for should reimburse the federal government for the
>cost of training?
>Get real. Maybe, instead, the government should INCREASE their
>minimum service commitment for pilots from six years up TO 10
>years. That would make more sense. If he/she flies in combat,
>then they could get extra credit for an 'early out'.
10 years is not enough. Go for a full twenty, with reimbusement as an
alternative.
>
>Now, let's get back to brass tacks. Why are railroaders so
>intense in trying to argue that this is an UNFAIR subsidy?
>Subsidy itself, in this case, is a very convaluted stretch,
>but UNFAIR?
>Let's assume I've proved my point, first of all, that the DoD
>is not intentionally training pilots for the airlines as the
>only reason for the military air services to exist.
Not proven, but granted.
>Now, is there something unbalanced about training that the DoD
>provides for aircraft operation, as compared to locomotive
>operation? Certainly. And why is that?
>Well, how bout technology? When was the last time a military
>garrison came charging into battle on a train? Not recently.
Wrong. Trains are extremely important to logistics. Most armored vehicles
will make a significant part of the journey to battle on trains.
>Aircraft are quite potent as military weapons on the modern
>battlefield, trains are not. Modern wars are built up,
>fought, and 'gone back home' in four or five months.
Logistics is the most important part of modern warfare, not high-tech
weapons. In fact, high tech, and with it high intensity, have made
logistics even more important, because supplies are sonsumed more quickly.
Even though it seemed shorter, the Pesian Gulf war lasted more than twice
this long.
>Fast sealift and airlift are the only ways to support such
>wars logistically, with limited back-home support from
>commercial freight railroads.
The role of railroads is as important as sealift or airlift. It would be
very difficult, perhaps impossible, to get, say, an armored division, to a
port, without the railroads. Airlift cannot move sufficient numbers of
vehicles, to, say, Saudi Arabia, to impact a conventional land war.
>And aircraft are not only
>logistics haulers for the military, aircraft are also
>weapons delivery systems (yeh, I know, a DoD euphemism
>for Mach 3 Killing Machines).
>So the need to train DoD aircrews and not rail crews is
>just a modern fact of life. Nothing unfair about it.
>It's just reality.
It doesn't mean that the airlines and airplane manufacturing industies are
not subsidized by the reality.
Regards,
-Mike Bilhartz
Michael Bilhartz
George Conklin wrote in message <64ta0j$j71$1...@nina.pagesz.net>...
>In article <64t96r$cl7$7...@darla.visi.com>,
>Matthew J. Frahm <mfr...@tiny.net> wrote:
>>And those pilots would get 2000 hours where?
>>
>
> Right now some work for close to minimum wage flying
>around well-to-do owners of private planes to their
>destinations. Others work in commuter airlines for about
>$14,000 a year (less than a Raleigh bus driver).
Commuter airlines are air carriers as well. Are you saying that they do not
require 2000 hours? How many do they require, and where do they get them?
Could this have something to do with the relatively bad safety record of
commuter airlines in general? In fact, I believe I have read that the
relative inexperience of pilots is considered to be a contributing factor.
>Otherwise
>they just fly around picking up hours. Still there is a
>waiting list to get with the majors and the unionized
>workforce.
>
Nothing you have said indicates that this surplus would exist if airlines
stopped using ex-military pilots. Perhaps a fully qualified military pilot
should have a twenty year service obligation, otherwise, he or she (or the
airline) repays the government for their training, prorated. That might
help deal with a serious problem in the military- keeping their highly
trained pilots ( I realize that reserve duty is an offsetting factor in some
cases). I think the concept has a certain Libertarian flair to it, even.
Regards,
-Mike Bilhartz
kz
Merritt Mullen wrote:
> And to further correct some mis-statements on this group, of the $9.1
> billion of federal aviation funding (for 1998), about 73% comes from
> user fees (per 1994 DOT figures). That means the aviation subsidy from
> the general funds is "only" about $2.5 billion annually.
>
> The other mis-statement I saw recently was that airlines do not pay fuel
> taxes. The airlines DO pay fuel taxes and that revenue goes into the
> aviation trust fund. I think this misconception comes from a period
> when the airlines were exempt from the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax
> which was dedicated to deficit reduction (whereas all other modes,
> including Amtrak, were paying the tax). This has been corrected and the
> "deficit reduction" tax is now paid by everyone, but it no longer goes
> to deficit reduction, except for the taxes paid by the RRs, including
> Amtrak. The fuel taxes paid by the airline and highway users go to the
> respective trust funds.
>
> If any of the above is incorrect, please straighten me out.
>
> Merritt
I believe that $9.1 billion was the appropriations for the FAA above
what the user fees paid. I also have the 1994 DOT reports and will check
this out - isn't spending from trust funds off the appropirations
process? It shows up in their budget, but not appropriations (like
Merritt said, correct me if I misread the reports).
KZ
Merritt Mullen
Randy Treadway wrote:
>
> The original thread suggested that the military has no reason to
> train pilots after the cold war, but are kept going as an intentional
> way to subsidize the airlines by giving them pilots already trained
> in multi-engine aircraft operation.
That assertion is so ridiculous that it shouldn't even need discussion.
You go on to make some very good comment regarding pay and retention of
military pilots that I generally agree with.
> Now, let's get back to brass tacks. Why are railroaders so
> intense in trying to argue that this is an UNFAIR subsidy?
> Subsidy itself, in this case, is a very convaluted stretch,
> but UNFAIR?
I think I have to disagree here. Unless I missed it, I didn't notice
anyone saying it was an UNFAIR subsidy (if they did, I don't agree).
The arguement was whether it was a subsidy at all. Many
anti-passenger-rail people don't want to admit that highways and
commercial aviation get any subsidies at all, some even saying user fees
are in excess of actual costs and go to reduce the federal deficit.
Most passenger rail advocates simply try to point out that ALL modes of
transportation are subsidized to some extent or the other, and the
arguement should be about the value of the subsidy to the economic well
being of the nation.
> Now, is there something unbalanced about training that the DoD
> provides for aircraft operation, as compared to locomotive
> operation? Certainly. And why is that?
> Well, how bout technology? When was the last time a military
> garrison came charging into battle on a train? Not recently.
> Aircraft are quite potent as military weapons on the modern
> battlefield, trains are not.
Good points. It reminds me that in WW II, when passenger and freight
trains paid a very important part in the war effort, US military
locomotive engineers (and other train operating personnel) that were
needed in Europe and a few places in the US were mostly trained by the
private railroads before they entered the military. In a sense the RRs
were subsidizing the military by providing trained personnel, just the
opposite of the situation regarding the airlines.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Michael Bilhartz wrote:
>
> Commuter airlines are air carriers as well. Are you saying that they do not
> require 2000 hours? How many do they require, and where do they get them?
> Could this have something to do with the relatively bad safety record of
> commuter airlines in general? In fact, I believe I have read that the
> relative inexperience of pilots is considered to be a contributing factor.
Until recently (a couple of years ago), commuter airlines did not have
to meet the same safety and training requirements as the big schedule
airlines. This was changed for the safety concerns you mentioned.
Never the less, the more experiences and qualified you are the more
likely you can get a job with the major airlines. That is why military
pilots can go directly from the military to the major airlines, while
civilian trained pilots must work on low paying flights for a number of
years first.
> Nothing you have said indicates that this surplus would exist if airlines
> stopped using ex-military pilots.
I'm pretty sure the surplus of pilots would not only disappear, but that
there would be a shortage, which would require the airlines to hire less
qualified persons and expand their training program to qualify them. In
that sense, they would be losing an indirect federal subsidy if they
lost the ready availability of military pilots.
Perhaps a fully qualified military pilot
> should have a twenty year service obligation, otherwise, he or she (or the
> airline) repays the government for their training, prorated.
There is something similar to that, except I think it only applys if the
pilot wants to leave the service prior to five years.
Merritt
Michael Bilhartz
Merritt Mullen wrote in message <347499...@ridgecrest.ca.us>...
>Michael Bilhartz wrote:
> Perhaps a fully qualified military pilot
>> should have a twenty year service obligation, otherwise, he or she (or
the
>> airline) repays the government for their training, prorated.
>
>There is something similar to that, except I think it only applys if the
>pilot wants to leave the service prior to five years.
>
A 5-6 year commitment is not enough for the many hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of dollars that are invested in their training. Each flight
hour is training in the eyes of potential employers. Ironically, after
being trained, they work off their commitment by receiving more training.
I think that most military pilots love what they do, and few go to
commercial aviation simply for the money. But, for whatever the reason, the
airline that hires them receives a huge benefit, and our armed forces suffer
a loss whose dollar cost to this country is often the least of it.
Regards,
-Mike Bilhartz
Merritt Mullen
kz wrote:
>
> I believe that $9.1 billion was the appropriations for the FAA above
> what the user fees paid. I also have the 1994 DOT reports and will check
> this out - isn't spending from trust funds off the appropirations
> process? It shows up in their budget, but not appropriations (like
> Merritt said, correct me if I misread the reports).
I am pretty sure the $9.1 billion FAA budget includes about $6 or 7$
billion from the aviation trust fund, but it would help if you could
confirm that so we will know for sure. I think spending from the trust
funds must go though the same authorization process as spending from the
general funds.
Merritt
BobTrain
In article <6481gp$18s$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
Conklin) writes:
> If Amtrak cannot make money hauling people, it should shut
>down. It nees to pay full operating costs, plus a $3 PFC
>per rider, and a 10% tax on top of that to pay for
>improvements. It needs to pay for 100% of the capital needs
>for rolling stock and roadbed improvements. If there is a
>market for the 30-50 cent per mile travel which will result,
>so be it. If not, so be it.
Shouldn't be any trouble if someone else pays for the track (highway, runway,
waterway)
Eric Florack
In article <34843D...@ridgecrest.ca.us>,
mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us wrote:
>
> Eric Florack wrote:
> >
> > Which suggests, that by design, there are in fact easier ways to get
> > around than mass transport by rail, does it not?
>
> Only if you believe that all issues are black and white.
Yes, they are. Some of the black and white spots are rather small,
however. You
have at last begun asking questions at that level:
>
> Can't you accept that in some cases it is easier to "get around" by
> rail,
Sure. But not the majority of the time, or it would be a more popular
means of
transportation.
> sometimes by automobile,
Indeed... usually... and that, seemingly, is your rub.
> and sometimes by shoe leather?
Of course! But in reality, that doesn't enter the transportation
picture, does
it?
/E
For the benefit of Spambots everywhere:
webmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@localhost
=0=
There is no such thing as 'shades of grey',no 'grey areas', only black
and white spots, some of which are very small. If you see grey, you're
not getting close enough to what you're looking at to know it's true
nature. All grey areas are merely a large number of component questions
you're not close enough to see.
____________________________ __________________________________
/Eric Florack, SysOp of the /\ /Internet:eflo...@servtech.com /\
/ FREE FILE FARM BBS / /\ / or eric_f...@xn.xerox.com _/ /\
/716-352-6544 or 352-1629 / \/ / 'A day without Clinton is like / \/
/GT Network 041/003,041/007 /\ / a day without hemorrhoids' /
/___________________________/ / /_________________________________/ /
\___________________________\/ \_________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Merritt Mullen
Eric Florack wrote:
>
> In article <34843D...@ridgecrest.ca.us>,
> mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us wrote:
> >
> > Can't you accept that in some cases it is easier to "get around" by
> > rail,
>
> Sure. But not the majority of the time, or it would be a more popular
> means of transportation.
Exactly, and of course, the same could be said for air travel. If you
exclude walking, the overwhelmingly popular means of "getting around" is
by automobile. Both airplanes and trains are relatively unpopular in
comparison, but they each have their place.
eflo...@servtech.com
In article <3485AC...@ridgecrest.ca.us>,
I've never suggested otherwise.
However;
The cost effectiveness of Slamtrak is simply not there. So, perhaps Rail
passenger service should find it's own 'place' without government control.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
d...@telerama.com
eflo...@servtech.com wrote:
>
>
> The cost effectiveness of Slamtrak is simply not there. So, perhaps Rail
> passenger service should find it's own 'place' without government control.
>
Federal Highway $23,275,000,000 60%
Federal Aviation $ 9,077,000,000 23%
Federal Transit $ 4,840,000,000 13%
Federal Railroad $ 937,000,000 2$
Amtrak $ 793,000,000 2%
Source NARP newsletter Oct./Nov. 1997
So, for a measly 2% of the US Transportation Budget for 1998 we can have
a national passenger railroad system. Looks like a good deal to me. I
think, when 83% of funding is devoted to cars and plane, that you are
barking up the wrong tree when you talk of Gov't control of
transportation.
regards,
dre
HaRRy
On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 21:34:47 -0600, eflo...@servtech.com expounded:
»The cost effectiveness of Slamtrak is simply not there. So, perhaps Rail
»passenger service should find it's own 'place' without government control.
What is "Slamtrak"?
Merritt Mullen
d...@telerama.com wrote:
>
> Transportation funding for FY 1998 is as follows:
>
> Federal Highway $23,275,000,000 60%
> Federal Aviation $ 9,077,000,000 23%
> Federal Transit $ 4,840,000,000 13%
> Federal Railroad $ 937,000,000 2$
> Amtrak $ 793,000,000 2%
Just to clarify, the Federal Railroad Administration budget of $937
million INCLUDES the "Amtrak" number, meaning the RR funding without
Amtrak is only $144 million, truly a small amount considering the amount
and value of goods moved by rail.
Also, the "Amtrak" number includes not only the amount needed to run the
current Amtrak system but also things like the high-speed rail
development, NEC improvement program (NECIP), excess funds to support
the RR retirement fund, etc. The breakdown is:
Amtrak (operations and capital) $401 million
NECIP/Penn Sta/HSR $270 million
Exess RR retirement payments $142 million
(The total of $813 million is the $793 million "Amtrak" number plus $20
for High Speed Rail, which is a separate appropriation.)
The other interesting statistic is that while highway, aviation, and
transit funding were all inceased by about 10% when compared to 1997, RR
funding was DECREASED by 9% (Amtrak decreased by 6%). Passenger
railroading in the US is the only passenger transportation mode moving
toward self-sufficiency by the year 2002.
While it is true that highway and aviation funds consist to a great part
of user fees paid into the respective trust funds, those "fees" are
still federal taxes and the federal government gets to say how they are
spent. Unlike the case with Amtrak, which is on the road to
self-sufficiency, there is no effort to move government control of
highways and aviation back to the private sector.
Merritt
d...@telerama.com
Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
> Just to clarify, the Federal Railroad Administration budget of $937
> million INCLUDES the "Amtrak" number, meaning the RR funding without
> Amtrak is only $144 million, truly a small amount considering the amount
> and value of goods moved by rail.
>
My mistake. I missed the asterisk in the table.
regards,
dre
Merritt Mullen
Stas...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify, the Federal Railroad Administration budget of $937
> > million INCLUDES the "Amtrak" number, meaning the RR funding without
> > Amtrak is only $144 million, truly a small amount considering the amount
> > and value of goods moved by rail.
>
> the railroads are private sector businesses, what are they spending all
> that money on?
$144 million is a lot to me also, but apparantly not a lot to the
federal government which will spend over $38 BILLION on transportation
in 1998 (FAA, FHA, FTA, and FRA), not including the Coast Guard and
maritime spending.
I suspect very little, if any, of that $144 million goes directly to the
freight RRs; it probably goes mostly for internal expenses of the
Federal Railroad Administration.
Still, $144 million in support of the private freight RRs is peanuts
compared to the $9,077 million in federal dollars going to support the
private airlines. And don't get too picky, I realize that is a bit of
an apples and oranges comparison (ie, federal aviation dollars support
passengers as well as freight; a good part of the $9.1 billion comes
from the aviation trust fund; some of the aviation money supports
general aviation; etc, etc).
Merritt
Drrocks
Let's not get too far into this swamp before before we remember that the
aviation trust fund, just like the highway trust fund, is a TAX and
EVERBODY, not just the "users" pay, through increased business costs. A
tax by any other name..............
Bruce
Merritt Mullen wrote:
<snip, snip>
George Conklin
In article <348C16...@ridgecrest.ca.us>,
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>While it is true that highway and aviation funds consist to a great part
>of user fees paid into the respective trust funds, those "fees" are
>still federal taxes and the federal government gets to say how they are
>spent.
This is unfortunately true, since a large amount of the
fees goes towards debt reduction and to pay very high
subidies so Amtrak riders can get a 'choice.' Government
would show a lot of common sense to ask Amtrak riders to pay
100% of the cost of capital improvements, including rolling
stock, all of operating expenses, and THEN a 10% surcharge
which politicians can spend as they wish, as you note above.
George Conklin
In article <348CAB7C...@rof.net>, Drrocks <ba...@rof.net> wrote:
>Let's not get too far into this swamp before before we remember that the
>aviation trust fund, just like the highway trust fund, is a TAX and
>EVERBODY, not just the "users" pay, through increased business costs. A
>tax by any other name..............
>
>
Bruce
Then let us be fair and put an Amtrak Tax on tickets:
10%, plus have users pay directly for all operating costs
and equipment costs. Then we will see if transporation at
50 cents a mile can compete with transporation at 8.8 cents.
Eric Florack
On Sun, 07 Dec 1997 12:25:38 -0500, d...@telerama.com drooled:
>eflo...@servtech.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> The cost effectiveness of Slamtrak is simply not there. So, perhaps Rail
>> passenger service should find it's own 'place' without government control.
>>
>Transportation funding for FY 1998 is as follows:
>
> Federal Highway $23,275,000,000 60%
> Federal Aviation $ 9,077,000,000 23%
> Federal Transit $ 4,840,000,000 13%
> Federal Railroad $ 937,000,000 2$
> Amtrak $ 793,000,000 2%
>
>Source NARP newsletter Oct./Nov. 1997
>
>So, for a measly 2% of the US Transportation Budget for 1998 we can have
>a national passenger railroad system. Looks like a good deal to me. I
>think, when 83% of funding is devoted to cars and plane, that you are
>barking up the wrong tree when you talk of Gov't control of
>transportation.
>
You're only telling less than half the story.
What are the ridership percentages?
Eric Florack
On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 19:22:53 -0700, Drrocks <ba...@rof.net> drooled:
>Let's not get too far into this swamp before before we remember that the
>aviation trust fund, just like the highway trust fund, is a TAX and
>EVERBODY, not just the "users" pay, through increased business costs. A
>tax by any other name..............
>
>Bruce
>
>Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
><snip, snip>
>
>(ie, federal aviation dollars support passengers as well as freight; a
>good part of the $9.1 billion comes from the aviation trust fund; some
>of the aviation money supports general aviation; etc, etc).
True.
And with the frieght being hauled, everyone in the area served, has a
better chance to benefit from the service they're paying for.
How much freight is moved on AMTRAK?
Patrick Scheible
George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) wrote:
: Then let us be fair and put an Amtrak Tax on tickets:
: 10%, plus have users pay directly for all operating costs
: and equipment costs. Then we will see if transporation at
: 50 cents a mile can compete with transporation at 8.8 cents.
George,
Right after TWA flight 800 went down, when it looked like it might be
a bomb, the Federal government put up many billions of dollars in
state of the art explosives detection equipment for all airports.
That came out of general revenue, not user fees. Why didn't the
airlines or aviation user fees pay for it? When are railroads going
to get that kind of quick response to real problems, let alone
problems that were only unconfirmed suspicions?
-- Patrick Scheible
George Conklin
In article <66kqas$3j6$1...@dns2.serv.net>, Patrick Scheible <k...@serv.net> wrote:
>George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) wrote:
>
>: Then let us be fair and put an Amtrak Tax on tickets:
>: 10%, plus have users pay directly for all operating costs
>: and equipment costs. Then we will see if transporation at
>: 50 cents a mile can compete with transporation at 8.8 cents.
>
>George,
>
>Right after TWA flight 800 went down, when it looked like it might be
>a bomb, the Federal government put up many billions of dollars in
>state of the art explosives detection equipment for all airports.
Security at airports is paid for by the local units, and
screening by the air carriers directly.
Eric Florack
On 10 Dec 1997 01:13:00 GMT, k...@itchy.serv.net (Patrick Scheible)
drooled:
>George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) wrote:
>
>: Then let us be fair and put an Amtrak Tax on tickets:
>: 10%, plus have users pay directly for all operating costs
>: and equipment costs. Then we will see if transporation at
>: 50 cents a mile can compete with transporation at 8.8 cents.
>
>George,
>
>Right after TWA flight 800 went down, when it looked like it might be
>a bomb, the Federal government put up many billions of dollars in
>state of the art explosives detection equipment for all airports.
>That came out of general revenue, not user fees. Why didn't the
>airlines or aviation user fees pay for it? When are railroads going
>to get that kind of quick response to real problems, let alone
>problems that were only unconfirmed suspicions?
That will oly happen when the government, or more accurately, some
within the government, are trying to cover their asses, as they
were/are with Flight 800.
/E
J Haggerty
Then we should also be fair and have the airlines pay for the NAVAIDS,
weather forecasting, air traffic controllers, radar equipment, etc,
etc.
>In article <66kqas$3j6$1...@dns2.serv.net>, Patrick Scheible <k...@serv.net> wrote:
>>George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) wrote:
>>
>>: Then let us be fair and put an Amtrak Tax on tickets:
>>: 10%, plus have users pay directly for all operating costs
>>: and equipment costs. Then we will see if transporation at
>>: 50 cents a mile can compete with transporation at 8.8 cents.
Remove spam from address when responding via E-mail.
full...@flash.spam.net
George Conklin
In article <3490be12...@news.flash.net>,
J Haggerty <full...@flash.net> wrote:
>Then we should also be fair and have the airlines pay for the NAVAIDS,
>weather forecasting, air traffic controllers, radar equipment, etc,
>etc.
>
>>In article <66kqas$3j6$1...@dns2.serv.net>, Patrick Scheible <k...@serv.net> wrote:
>>>George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) wrote:
>>>
>>>: Then let us be fair and put an Amtrak Tax on tickets:
>>>: 10%, plus have users pay directly for all operating costs
>>>: and equipment costs. Then we will see if transporation at
>>>: 50 cents a mile can compete with transporation at 8.8 cents.
>
Weather forcasting existed before the airlines. Should
farmers be charged for weather forecasting too?
The Swiss privatized ATC, and made a profit. Clinton
wanted to privatize the FAA, but was not allowed to.
Airports should be privatized as quickly as possible.
However, having done this, air transit at 8.8 cents per
mile will beat out Amtrak, which by then would be over 50
cents a mile.
Howard Bingham
In article <66kqas$3j6$1...@dns2.serv.net>, k...@serv.net wrote:
> (clipped)
>
> Right after TWA flight 800 went down, when it looked like it might be
> a bomb, the Federal government put up many billions of dollars in
> state of the art explosives detection equipment for all airports.
> That came out of general revenue, not user fees. Why didn't the
> airlines or aviation user fees pay for it? When are railroads going
> to get that kind of quick response to real problems, let alone
> problems that were only unconfirmed suspicions?
>
> -- Patrick Scheible
--
And how does the press (radio & tv) treat Amtrak, when one of Amtrak's
trains jump the track..?
They make it sound as if travel by rail is dangerous to everyone's health
& rarely has Amtrak come back & shown safety stats, which prove that rail
travel is safer than when a person is when walking public
streets/sidewalks of the neighborhood that he/she resides in..
Howard Bingham
(Who lives in an area, where there are very few sidewalks in residential
area's)..
--
--
(Opinions stated, are personal & are not those of my employer.)
D. Howard Bingham, Photographic Tech., Baylor College of Medicine
One Baylor Plaza, Suite 303-A, Houston, Texas, 77030 USA
Phone (voice): 713-798-4681, (Fax): 713-798-6853
Visit our web site at URL: http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/miave/