Slashdot Mirror

then airlines will lobby to lower their compliance burden too.

Or the airlines will lobby to bring general aviation pilots and operations up to FAR Part 135 standards.

Are you referring to this?

http://www.nbaa.org/ops/intl/customs-regulatory/customs/preclearance/

Link got fucked. It's here.

How is that statement FUD? What fear, uncertainty or doubt is it spreading? Also, no, they won't have to have paper backups though the National Business Avaiation Association does recommend having paper backups for a transitional period. From

When transitioning to a paperless cockpit, FAA approval is not required, however it is recommend that operators carry paper backup materials during the initial transition period. The pilot in command of the aircraft is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the proper aeronautical charts are available for the flight, so it is important to validate the reliability of the iPad during the transition.

So they want to restrict private companies from collecting and sharing someone's location data, yet the federal government is planning on implementing a rule that requires someone flying in a private plane to have a verified and approved security threat before they will prevent the government's location tracking to be made public. http://www.nbaa.org/ops/security/barr/20110318-barr-bolen-aopa.php
This is referred to as the TMZ bill since it will allow paparazzi to know the location of celebrities. It will also allow companies to learn where their competitor's aircraft are.

There's just one more step before toll transponder information is made public too.

There's of course the tiny little issue :

a) you're right, there's no threat, and lifting security precautions won't change a thing b) you're wrong, there is a threat, and lifting security precautions means a weekly re-run of 9/11

If b) is true you're asking thousands of people to die just so you can have a little easier time at an airport. And, frankly, anyone reading the news knows perfectly well b) is true.

What you say isn't true, btw, you have the option of paying enough to charter a flight and avoid the continental U.S. altogether. The problem isn't what the sovereign united states do, the problem is that you are prepared to accept any amount of discomfort for a few bucks.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You forgot option c): There is a threat, albeit not a statistically significant one, and the "security precautions" we are currently taking are little more than a sleight-of-hand intended to make the flying public feel (no pun intended) like the government is doing something to address their fears. If the threat were anywhere near as real as you imagined it to be, we would *still* have airplanes blowing up weekly. Remember the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber and Flight 93? Those were all thwarted by the actions of other passengers on the airplane, not the TSA. What we have right now is an out-of-control government bureaucracy trampling on our 4th Amendment rights, and still letting terrorists and entertainers smuggle contraband on board airplanes.

Regarding charter flights: c'mon, that's seriously disingenuous, not to mention one-sided. If you are that afraid of being blown up on an airliner, YOU could use charter flights rather than commercial airlines. "the problem is that you are prepared to violate others' civil rights for a few bucks." It's no less true when you say it than it is when I do. Just sayin. Furthermore, what you are saying isn't even true. TSA does require some screening, even for chartered aircraft, if the aircraft weighs more than 12,500 pounds (see here for details) and they were trying to expand that program to privately owned and operated aircraft in 2009, although that measure was dropped due to public outcry (see here and here). So no, you can't really take a charter flight without being screened, although for now you could fly in a private jet, if you can afford the cost (you probably can't, unless your last name is Pelosi, Clinton or Bush).

You sure have your antennas all aquiver in the wrong directions. You claimed I hadn't read the article, my point was I had gone beyond simply reading the article to actually thinking about it. You too can be on a first name basis with people at the Inq, I get the impression that hundreds of people send them email every day. This is the internet get used to the flat topology.

Meanwhile, you too can also harness the power of the net to do a little research. Here's some footprints that took me about 10 minutes to dig up when the GC Air registration showed and, well another 3 or 4 to redig just for you:

Find the listing for GC Air LLC as a registered business in Rhode Island. Note the owner's name, note all the other business that the same owner has registered in the state.
2002 Corporate Registrations

Find the owner of GC Air LLC listed in the NBAA's list of companies that do aircraft leasing. Notice he is listed as contact for "GE Corporate Aircraft Group Commercial Finance."
NBAA

Think about that name for a second: GE Corporate Aircraft ... GC Air, what a coinkydink! Follow up on that website, and see that, surprise, they provide financing for aircraft purchases.
GC Air, LLC

Why would HP need financing, they've plenty of cash in the bank to spend if they wanted to buy a fleet of aircraft. Ergo they either leased it, or they took out a loan. Either way, it isn't HP money being spent willy-nilly.

Furthermore, why don't you take a look at what Gulfstream has to say about their very good buddy, el Jefe Supremo, Jorge Bush:
Flying Pigs

Wow! 50% depreciation in the first year. What a huge barrel of pork! Yeah, that sure will help out employment, el Jefe. Not! But regardless, HP would be fiscally irresponsible to not make use of this enormous tax break. Anyone who has paid attention to (or done much of any research on) civil aviation knows that the real market value of private aircraft has a very low rate of depreciation -- sometimes that shiznat actually appreciates. Even if the IRS plays dumb to that fact, best case is probably (yes probably, aircraft depreciation is actually fairly complicated unlike, say, automobile) the 5 year MACRS schedule, so average 20% per year. That means, at the very best, HP's only going to see about 20% depreciation out of their current fleet this year. But under el Jefe's plan, they can realize 50% right off the bat for no more money than they were paying out before. Since the real market depreciation on private aircraft is probably much less than the 20% the IRS might normally let HP max out, the real cost of the lease or loan is going to be relatively small, plus you can be pretty confident that interest rates are less today than they were 3 years ago, so HP could easily end up with a smaller monthly payment and a huge increase in tax-writeoffs by making these transactions.

So put that in your pipe and fark it.

PS, if I wanted to respond and pretend I was someone else, I would just use a sockpuppet, that's at least twice as sexy as doing it AC.

Do you mean that wars are different from elections because they are hell? It seems that (some) insurance companies have been attempting to make a profit by speculating on wars for centuries. What is the advantage of preventing a broader market from developing?