From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   conklin  wrote:   
   >   
   >"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   >news:llgmjm$i9b$1@news.albasani.net...   
   >> conklin  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:llgi4d$971$2@news.albasani.net...   
   >>>> conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>news:llflst$8kd$2@news.albasani.net...   
   >>>>>> Sancho Panza  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>On 5/14/2014 10:49 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:23:45 AM UTC-4, conklin wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as evidence you simply make it up, like RDU going   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>bankrupt.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>No one ever said RDU was going bankrupt.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>What people did say was that RDU required significant subsidies   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>function.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>Relevant portions of their financial statements--showing the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>subsidies--were quoted.  Curiously, you never responded to those   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>specific   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>quotes.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>More nonsense.  Ticket tax money is not a "subsidy."  It is a user   
   >>>>>>>>>>>fee   
   >>>>>>>>>>>paid by users.  And so is the PCF.  And so forth.  And, by the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>way,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>daily operations pay for the bonds, not the taxpayer.  You don't   
   >>>>>>>>>>>know   
   >>>>>>>>>>>how to read a financial statement.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>George, you don't get to re-define an excise tax as a user fee,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>Sorry you don't understand English.  It is a fee paid by users for   
   >>>>>>>>>use   
   >>>>>>>>>in   
   >>>>>>>>>air travel.  It is not a subsidy.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>No, that would be airfare. If the airport isn't subsidized, I still   
   >>>>>>>>want   
   >>>>>>>>to know why the airport gets to collect an excise tax on passengers   
   >>>>>>>>in   
   >>>>>>>>addition to rent paid to it by airlines. Why isn't rent sufficient to   
   >>>>>>>>operate the airport and retire its construction bonds?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Because that is how the agency running the airport chooses to finance   
   >>>>>>>its capital and operating budgets.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If the airport cannot retire its debt nor operate on revenues it   
   >>>>>> receives   
   >>>>>> from rent from airlines, it's being subsidized   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>This idiot does not know the difference between landside and airside.   
   >>>>>It   
   >>>>>is   
   >>>>>hopeless to talk to such people.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> An airport authority can still collect rent from landside tenants to use   
   >>>> for operations and to retire debt. That's not subsidy.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Still want to hear from George as to why special taxes on passengers are   
   >>>> required if the airport isn't being subsidized.   
   >>>   
   >>>Taxes on passengers are not "subsidies."   
   >>   
   >> Yes, George, they are.   
   >>   
   >   
   >You are simply nuts.   
      
   It's not that difficult to understand, George. If the airport cannot   
   survive on its income from rents, it's receiving a subsidy. In case of   
   ticket taxes and passenger facilities charges, those subsidies come   
   from passengers.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)