Trump Victory

[Scudrunner]

Not to get too political, but now that Donny is back how will it affect aviation ?

I stole this from Reddit

With Trump set to return to office in 2025, his agenda includes another attempt to reform the FAA and privatize air traffic control after trying to do so in his first term. Outlined from his agenda:
• Require the FAA to operate like a business.
• Shift from aviation user taxes to fees for air traffic services paid directly to ATC.
• Consolidate the 20 centers into "a much smaller number"
• Prohibit construction of new towers, unless they were digital/remotely operated
• ATC is too "overly cautious" when it comes to safety because they are currently a branch of the
FAA
• Pilot shortage could be reversed if copilots were required to have fewer flight hours or could count certified simulator training.
• Elimination of Essential Air Service contracts to
"free up pilots"

[Nark]

The only initiative I support is getting rid of EAS (essential air service)
Grand Isle Nebraska doesn’t need my taxes subsidizing lazy a-holes that can’t drive to Denver for a flight to LA and beyond.

Entirely different from Kake ,Alaska to Juneau, because the only other way is by boat.

Digitizing is beyond retarded. AI isn’t going to understand a Cessna 180 can do 130 or 50 in the downwind to adjust spacing.


I’m just happy watching all the libs melting down.

[Colonel]

You might recognize that Senator. He is the next Vice-President. I should mention he was personally attacked as a rascist during the election.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jd-van ... econd-lady

We are told we are garbage, but actually I think that’s what you’re getting from the dying Legacy Media

https://x.com/eveforamerica/status/1854100880343159115

[Big Pistons Forever]

Privatization of air navigation services is one of those careful what you wish for you may get it situations.

Nav Canada has been an unmitigated disaster for Canadian general aviation.

[Nark]

Fun fact,
Not germane the least bit, but connected to the topic at hand.:
I never met Vance, but we crossed paths at al Asad airbase in 2007. His unit was outgoing, mine replacing his.
Neat-o.
Maybe in my last few years as a guard guy I’ll get to fly a support mission for him.

[Scudrunner]

I guess I'm young or old enough depending on ones perspective to never dealt with ATC other than Nav Canada.

I will add that airport infrastructure is amazing in the USA compared to here. I go into airports here in Canada that support cities or towns of say 50K or 100K people and are complete shitholes.
The same airport serving an equivalent sized population in the USA has two top notch FBOs with courtesy car and hangar space.

I believe its a fundamental difference that the USA supports aviation and see's it's value, here in Canada you're an elite that needs to be taxed to death.

[Squaretail]

The only initiative I support is getting rid of EAS (essential air service)
Grand Isle Nebraska doesn’t need my taxes subsidizing lazy a-holes that can’t drive to Denver for a flight to LA and beyond.

A curious stance. Personally I use these kinds of flights a lot, and reduction in this kind of service would be detrimental to the people who work to support these services. In other words the government should support the people in places that supported Trump's election even more. For what its worth, the flight I last took into Grand Island was full, so its not like the services in places like this aren't being used. And I hate to break it to you Nark, but government support for stuff like this is how America has a burgeoning aviation sector and Canada doesn't. Besides, the military already funds a lot of the airport infrastructure in the U.S. so if there's a contract with whichever carrier to send the plane into these places isn't the only federal funds supporting it. Reducing air traffic into an airport has a huge negative impact on local business, so be careful what you wish for. I mean if this change comes into effect as you envision it, it directly affects how I would choose to operate and distribute my aviation dollars, favoring bigger locations. Essentially shifting more money from the economically depressed parts of the country to the wealthier urban centers. While that might not matter to you, I suspect it matters a lot to some of those unheard citizens who voted in this election, which in this instance apparently voted against their own economic interests.

On my own end the idea that ATC might get more pay to play certainly makes my own life more difficult - though really that's an inconvenience for me, I just pass the cost back to the American taxpayer, and they get slightly less bang for their buck. I couldn't recommend that they move more towards the NavCanada privatization model, at least from a service point of view. The ATC stateside is so much more agreeable to work with.

Consolidate the 20 centers into "a much smaller number"

What is this referring to? Just curious.

ATC is too "overly cautious" when it comes to safety because they are currently a branch of the
FAA

My god. Has he been elsewhere? I think the ATC stateside has reasonable margins for planes being close to one another, and way less cautious with getting near restrictive airspace compared to Canadian controllers. What do people feel is too cautious?

Either way, regardless of how else you feel about the upcoming change to the administration, I've never met a real estate guy who had ideas that were good for aviation.

As an extra point for us "Mexicans with sweaters" its going to get more problematic with customs again I sense, just like his last administration. I hope he doesn't decide to change the name of NAFTA, now CUSMA/USMCA/MUSCA again for marketing purposes.

[Nark]

The only initiative I support is getting rid of EAS (essential air service)
Grand Isle Nebraska doesn’t need my taxes subsidizing lazy a-holes that can’t drive to Denver for a flight to LA and beyond.

A curious stance. Personally I use these kinds of flights a lot, and reduction in this kind of service would be detrimental to the people who work to support these services. In other words the government should support the people in places that supported Trump's election even more. For what its worth, the flight I last took into Grand Island was full, so its not like the services in places like this aren't being used. And I hate to break it to you Nark, but government support for stuff like this is how America has a burgeoning aviation sector and Canada doesn't. Besides, the military already funds a lot of the airport infrastructure in the U.S. so if there's a contract with whichever carrier to send the plane into these places isn't the only federal funds supporting it. Reducing air traffic into an airport has a huge negative impact on local business, so be careful what you wish for. I mean if this change comes into effect as you envision it, it directly affects how I would choose to operate and distribute my aviation dollars, favoring bigger locations. Essentially shifting more money from the economically depressed parts of the country to the wealthier urban centers. While that might not matter to you, I suspect it matters a lot to some of those unheard citizens who voted in this election, which in this instance apparently voted against their own economic interests.

On my own end the idea that ATC might get more pay to play certainly makes my own life more difficult - though really that's an inconvenience for me, I just pass the cost back to the American taxpayer, and they get slightly less bang for their buck. I couldn't recommend that they move more towards the NavCanada privatization model, at least from a service point of view. The ATC stateside is so much more agreeable to work with.

Consolidate the 20 centers into "a much smaller number"

What is this referring to? Just curious.

ATC is too "overly cautious" when it comes to safety because they are currently a branch of the
FAA

My god. Has he been elsewhere? I think the ATC stateside has reasonable margins for planes being close to one another, and way less cautious with getting near restrictive airspace compared to Canadian controllers. What do people feel is too cautious?

Either way, regardless of how else you feel about the upcoming change to the administration, I've never met a real estate guy who had ideas that were good for aviation.

As an extra point for us "Mexicans with sweaters" its going to get more problematic with customs again I sense, just like his last administration. I hope he doesn't decide to change the name of NAFTA, now CUSMA/USMCA/MUSCA again for marketing purposes.

EAS subsidies are based upon airline deregulation back in the 1970’s not whether there are government pet- projects in the area.

https://www.transportation.gov/policy/a ... ir-service

I’m not a fan of subsidies in any industry. I suspect that ~71+ million other of my fellow countrymen think agree with me on that.

If Liberal, KS can sustain air service, because there is a demand, fantastic.

It’s kind of like sending $175 million to Lebanon, and $950 to North Carolina hurricane victims, if they qualify.

[Squaretail]

EAS subsidies are based upon airline deregulation back in the 1970’s not whether there are government pet- projects in the area.

https://www.transportation.gov/policy/a ... ir-service

I’m not a fan of subsidies in any industry. I suspect that ~71+ million other of my fellow countrymen think agree with me on that.

I'm not a fan of subsidies either, but certainly those subsidies benefit some people. What I'm saying is that this particular subsidy overwhelmingly benefits more red voters than blue ones given the locations that the EAS benefits. While they probably agree with you in principle, I wonder if they would if they knew it would cost them their job. I mean, like in your example that means that more of the revenue from air travel demand in thee areas will transfer to people in Denver instead of Grand Island - and having been to GI, especially the people working in the aviation sector, I can tell you they vote red. Not to mention additionally in the example you give shifting revenue from a red state (Nebraska) to a blue one (Colorado).

One should also say that if say this route is removed, then there's supposedly more pilots dumped into the market, isn't the goal here to make more pilots available? I don't mean to say, but if you increase the supply of pilots and decrease the demand... What does that do to wages for pilots? I know it probably won't matter for you, but I would wonder if that guy who just got, or is looking to get, an FO spot on one of these runs is going to feel the same. And pilots its my finding are a very red voting group. More voting against their economic self interest.

If Liberal, KS can sustain air service, because there is a demand, fantastic.

It’s kind of like sending $175 million to Lebanon, and $950 to North Carolina hurricane victims, if they qualify.

Not quite. It would be like taking that $950 from the more rural residents of NC, and giving it to only people who live in Raleigh. Then tell the people you took the money from that you saved the taxpayer a small sum to get their vote.

Edit, I just discovered your example is even flawed. The EAS guarantees two flights a day out of a location, and United only serves Grand Island every other day with one flight - ask me how I know - so I assume the current schedule is due to market demand as opposed to being subsidized.

[Nark]

That’s my entire point:
Market demand not subsidized routes.