bsacks05
Well Known Member
Last edited:
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Cute little ATA propaganda video
- Thread starter bsacks05
- Start date
joeboisselle
Well Known Member
Riiiiight! I had no idea delays at the airport were caused by small aircraft darting out in front of airlines to beat them to the runway!! Shouldn't anyone operating under part 135 pay the same usage tax?
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
Oh, yeah, that's it! I knew there was a reason why DFW gets slow. Now I know it's all those bizjets! Thanks, ATA, for setting me straight!
Morons....
Morons....
...
The problem is, these ad's will work. Most of the people sitting at the airports, dealing with delays, etc. will see this ad. If "It's GA's fault" is constantyl thrown in their face, the result is "they aren't paying their fair share, we should get rid of them anyway."
Joe Public doesn't care enough about the topic to do their own research. I am suprised I don't see more marketing to Joe Public from AOPA, The Alliance for Aviation Across America, NBAA, and these other organizations.
The problem is, these ad's will work. Most of the people sitting at the airports, dealing with delays, etc. will see this ad. If "It's GA's fault" is constantyl thrown in their face, the result is "they aren't paying their fair share, we should get rid of them anyway."
Joe Public doesn't care enough about the topic to do their own research. I am suprised I don't see more marketing to Joe Public from AOPA, The Alliance for Aviation Across America, NBAA, and these other organizations.
found it
had to look for it:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?...23/2007&ToDate=05/30/2007&Category=/index.cfm
That's ATA as in the Air Transport Association. At first I thought you meant ATA as in American Trans Air airlines.
My former boss operated under the policy of "get your lie out there first." The public will usually believe/remember the first part and not the explanation.
had to look for it:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?...23/2007&ToDate=05/30/2007&Category=/index.cfm
That's ATA as in the Air Transport Association. At first I thought you meant ATA as in American Trans Air airlines.
My former boss operated under the policy of "get your lie out there first." The public will usually believe/remember the first part and not the explanation.
Last edited:
joeboisselle said:
Yes, I feel so sorry for those large airlines. I think I'll write them a check right now.
We need some CGI guys out there to make an answer to this load of tripe. Something to the tune of the airliners taking a Cessna's lunch money away, then grabbing his approach charts and playing keep away. They can kick sand in the Cessna's windscreen as they taxi away laughing about their free lunch.
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
Sergei Eisenstein I'm not, but ....
[Ad opens, looking at a man's nice dress shoes resting on a nice desk. ]
"So, let's see, Bob, we got those large bail-out loans from the feds, forced our pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and agents to take pay cuts, outsourced our airplane maintenance overseas and we [incredulous] only got $1 million bonuses this year! We need to cut more costs"
"I know, I know ... Hey! We can get our friends [emphasis] in the FAA to increase taxes on all those small airplanes so we [emphasis] pay less taxes! Remember all that campaign cash we gave them?"
[camera pans from shoes to man's face, dressed in snazzy suit. Man lights a cigar and exhales]
"Oh, yeah, I remember"
[Fade to gray photo of heavies and RJs stacked up on the ramp. Nothing commercial in sight]
[Voiceover with summary of text appearing on screen]
"The Airline / FAA plan will save the airlines $1.7 billion per year without reducing congestion at the major hub airports. Where do you think that money will go?"
[Ad opens, looking at a man's nice dress shoes resting on a nice desk. ]
"So, let's see, Bob, we got those large bail-out loans from the feds, forced our pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and agents to take pay cuts, outsourced our airplane maintenance overseas and we [incredulous] only got $1 million bonuses this year! We need to cut more costs"
"I know, I know ... Hey! We can get our friends [emphasis] in the FAA to increase taxes on all those small airplanes so we [emphasis] pay less taxes! Remember all that campaign cash we gave them?"
[camera pans from shoes to man's face, dressed in snazzy suit. Man lights a cigar and exhales]
"Oh, yeah, I remember"
[Fade to gray photo of heavies and RJs stacked up on the ramp. Nothing commercial in sight]
[Voiceover with summary of text appearing on screen]
"The Airline / FAA plan will save the airlines $1.7 billion per year without reducing congestion at the major hub airports. Where do you think that money will go?"
So here's a solution to their propaganda. For some period of time (pick a high traffic one) GA stops using the busy airports being targeted. Advertise very well in advance of doing this get GA onboard and stay organized. Then when the airlines become bogged down let them explain why they seem to still be having problems.
java
Well Known Member
Airtime...
I flew into Dulles, DC earlier this week. This video was playing in the baggage pickup concourse. I didn't stop to watch it, so only realized what it was about after seeing this post, but you can be sure people waiting around for their bags to arrive saw it 3 or 4 times.
I flew into Dulles, DC earlier this week. This video was playing in the baggage pickup concourse. I didn't stop to watch it, so only realized what it was about after seeing this post, but you can be sure people waiting around for their bags to arrive saw it 3 or 4 times.
N395V
Well Known Member
briand
Well Known Member
The part that gets me the most is when the DC-3 (or whatever it was supposed to be) says; "Plus hot-shot there is clogging up OUR skies", like the airlines own the skies. Give me a break. Whether we like it or not big corps. do own this country and they will get their way. Its only going to get worse. Look on the bright side, we could have Hugo Chavez for prez.. 
Sorry to revive an old thread...
But this video ticks me off every time I see it. I went to the Safer Skies website to check it out way back when. Some where on the site was a calculator that would tell you how much tax would be generated by an airplane flying a particular route using the current tax system (I think they were trying to point out that the current system is flawed because the "big" planes pay more than the "little" planes.) I can't remember the parameters I chose but it was something like a B737 and a Beechjet flying from New Orleans to Las Angeles. The 737 generated something like 1800.00 in tax revenue, while the Beechjet generated something around 200.00. Weeeeeeeeeell, what Safer Skies and ATA fail to mention in all of their propaganda is that, regardless of how much tax the airlines generate, the passengers pay for it. So, doing the math, assuming that both airplanes are full of people (something like 130 for the 737 and 8 for the Beechjet), the passengers in the 737 are paying LESS than the passengers in the Beechjet. I tried to find an email to point out the error in their logic, but interestingly enough, I couldn't find one. Heck, I don't even know if the site is still up anymore.
But this video ticks me off every time I see it. I went to the Safer Skies website to check it out way back when. Some where on the site was a calculator that would tell you how much tax would be generated by an airplane flying a particular route using the current tax system (I think they were trying to point out that the current system is flawed because the "big" planes pay more than the "little" planes.) I can't remember the parameters I chose but it was something like a B737 and a Beechjet flying from New Orleans to Las Angeles. The 737 generated something like 1800.00 in tax revenue, while the Beechjet generated something around 200.00. Weeeeeeeeeell, what Safer Skies and ATA fail to mention in all of their propaganda is that, regardless of how much tax the airlines generate, the passengers pay for it. So, doing the math, assuming that both airplanes are full of people (something like 130 for the 737 and 8 for the Beechjet), the passengers in the 737 are paying LESS than the passengers in the Beechjet. I tried to find an email to point out the error in their logic, but interestingly enough, I couldn't find one. Heck, I don't even know if the site is still up anymore.
