David, Actually the 747 has more impact on the entire aviation infrastructer than a C421. 747 is heavy beast, requires stong runways (= more $$$). It holds more pax, requiring bigger airports lounges, more parking space (again = more $$$). The money in the aviation fund was released in late 1990s by the administration and most of the airport improvement projects, and FAA grants are funded thanks to that. I wish though, all the money was headed to FAA's budget automaticaly, instead of a special legislation to unlock it. US still has one of the lowest taxation rates on air travel. Try Canada for the aviation taxes. I also know that Istanbul Int. Airport collects $15 per person for "airport fees". This is on top of EuroControl fees that airlines pay.. BAHA Fan of FAA grants keeping airports alive. -----Original Message----- From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of damiross2@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:06 AM To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Subject: Re: [AIRLINE] SF Gate: Feds threaten airlines over discount fares' hidden fees Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:58:09 +0000 Message-Id: <102320031458.5952.a85@xxxxxxxxxxx> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Oct 14 2003) X-Authenticated-Sender: ZGFtaXJvc3NAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ= THe problem is that the taxes are not going to runways and keeping airports up to date. There is a huge surplus in the aviation trust fund. However, this fund is being used to show that the federal debt is not that high. The segment fee is the worse of the taxes. Can you tell me that it takes $3 per person for ATC? It doesn't cost any more to control a 747 with 350 people in it than it does a Cessna 402 with 9 people yet the fee is the same. What other industry, besides tobacco, has such a high rate of taxation? David R > In a message dated 10/22/2003 2:53:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > damiross2@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > > << I have yet to see an airline ad that doesn't include, albeit in small > print, the governmental extortions placed on the fares. >> > > Um, I thought we were not supposed to get political here? Well, I guess we > will have to find another way to build runways and keep airports up to date > than charging the people who use them