Obama administration and user fees

"About" is what? 6 months?

Also, was that before or after you paid to be a FO at Gulfstream?

Alright, since you didn't ask me I'll tell you my background anyway. I started flying GA in 1991, CFI'd from 1997 - 2000, airline from 1999 - present. I have spent eight years flying GA before my first airline gig then, one more year after a furlough. Three years as a CFI. I am for user fees.

What most folks here don't understand is that user fees are not targeting Mr. PPL in his Cessna 152. What they are for is to level the playing field between airline and corporate. The reason for this is to pay for NAS modernization which is grossly outdated. I suppose they could just put on a hefty increase in fuel taxes but, something tells me everyone would be up in arms over that too.
 
What most folks here don't understand is that user fees are not targeting Mr. PPL in his Cessna 152. What they are for is to level the playing field between airline and corporate. The reason for this is to pay for NAS modernization which is grossly outdated. I suppose they could just put on a hefty increase in fuel taxes but, something tells me everyone would be up in arms over that too.
OK. Then we need to see what rules will be put in place to ensure that this does NOT end up targeting the PPL in his 152. Where will the line be drawn? Then perhaps we can discuss it more. You have to understand that a vague proposal to collect user fees makes all of us 172 drivers a little nervous.

As I said in one of my previous posts, in my current job I don't give a rats furry hind end about NAS modernization because the current one has not given me one iota of trouble. And if I don't need or want it, I don't know why I should pay for it. But that happens with countless gubmint programs, so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise.
 
Who would have thought that the discussion about user fees would become as heated as a discussion about abortion? Wow. I had to make sure I wasn't on that "other forum". I think everyone's opinion on the subject is known and with all the wonderful talk about unions getting thrown in here too, perhaps this is a great time to shut 'er down. Anyone else second that motion?

Seriously, how is it that you "dismiss" the avgas tax that GA already pays? I tell you what, I will use myself as an example. I fly a couple times a week and for law of averages, let's say 100 hours a year... which is a little low for what I have actually flown, but that's OK. So, at 10 GPH, that's a total of 194.00 a year...and I bet of that 100 hours, I use about 20 hours using the NAS. You know what? For me, user fees would probably be cheaper...but back to my original point. For my 100 hours of tooling around...I pay about 200 bucks...and that is REAL MONEY. So, I kindly ask you to refrain from saying that we are "basically not paying" because that is false and in this discussion is nothing but flamebait.

Oh yeah, we won't have to worry about it anyway. If the FAA gets what they want with the ADS-B system, most weekend folks won't be in anything but G and E airspace anyway. I know I can't afford a 20K upgrade that would be required.
 
What they are for is to level the playing field between airline and corporate. The reason for this is to pay for NAS modernization which is grossly outdated. I suppose they could just put on a hefty increase in fuel taxes but, something tells me everyone would be up in arms over that too.

But we already to pay more than the airlines. Jet A for GA is taxed 5x higher than what the airlines are charged.
 
What they are for is to level the playing field between airline and corporate.
And that was the main thrust behind the last proposal. Airlines see BizJets as a threat to their bottom line. It had nothing to do with "paying their fair share" for the NAS, it was about losing business travelers to the fractionals.

The reason for this is to pay for NAS modernization which is grossly outdated.
And the FAA won't squander the funds generated under a user fee scheme? Modernization can happen under the current funding method. You just need to teach the FAA how not to waste money.:laff:
 
Most air lines don't have much to fear losing biz travelers to fractionals, unless the company already has its own flight department and is considering downsizing it or is large enough to have it's own flight department but doesn't and is looking at fractionals as an alternative.
 
Coming from someone whose signature line is "release us NOW," that's incredibly ironic. You don't want to show support for your union, yet you expect to have the leverage to get released? Did you eat paint chips as a child?

Of course I ate paint chips, who didn't?!? :rolleyes:

Yeah, wearing a lanyard certainly will show my support for the union. Oh boy. Phil quakes in his boots every time he sees someone walking around with a cheap-o ALPA lanyard...

RE Crewpass, no it wasn't a national officer it was an LEC guy but he clearly did not state "non-union", he stated "non-ALPA", as in screw UPS guys, SWA guys, AA guys, AirTran guys, etc.

There's a difference between non-union and non-ALPA.
 
What most folks here don't understand is that user fees are not targeting Mr. PPL in his Cessna 152. What they are for is to level the playing field between airline and corporate. The reason for this is to pay for NAS modernization which is grossly outdated. I suppose they could just put on a hefty increase in fuel taxes but, something tells me everyone would be up in arms over that too.

The only argument I see as reasonable is the fractionals, 135 operators that don't pay the same fees as the airlines. Levying a fee on those operators in competition with airlines, so that they pay the exact same fees and taxes as the airlines, no more and no less might make sense.

There are elements in ATA and perhaps ALPA that have their own agenda. Very few people will respond to an argument made with a hidden agenda. Especially one that may or may not help you out, at the cost of others.

If rhetoric of "free-loading" were to be used, didn't the airlines get a bailout after 9/11? If one wants to chant the free loader mantra, did GA get a piece of the pie? Eh, no they didn't. Their business was harmed too, no? Shouldn't the airlines pay this 5 billion in direct subsidies back before management, and labor groups get a penny more? You know update the NAS? I mean to avoid the "free loading" epithet?

A broad based implementation of fees, like in Europe is a horrible idea. It will not pass.
 
Who would have thought that the discussion about user fees would become as heated as a discussion about abortion? Wow. I had to make sure I wasn't on that "other forum". I think everyone's opinion on the subject is known and with all the wonderful talk about unions getting thrown in here too, perhaps this is a great time to shut 'er down. Anyone else second that motion?

Seriously, how is it that you "dismiss" the avgas tax that GA already pays? I tell you what, I will use myself as an example. I fly a couple times a week and for law of averages, let's say 100 hours a year... which is a little low for what I have actually flown, but that's OK. So, at 10 GPH, that's a total of 194.00 a year...and I bet of that 100 hours, I use about 20 hours using the NAS. You know what? For me, user fees would probably be cheaper...but back to my original point. For my 100 hours of tooling around...I pay about 200 bucks...and that is REAL MONEY. So, I kindly ask you to refrain from saying that we are "basically not paying" because that is false and in this discussion is nothing but flamebait.

Oh yeah, we won't have to worry about it anyway. If the FAA gets what they want with the ADS-B system, most weekend folks won't be in anything but G and E airspace anyway. I know I can't afford a 20K upgrade that would be required.
Add to that in CA, I'm assessed a tax for my airplane, add to that, you land at any major airport, you are assessed a landing fee.

Here's the problem, I don't think a lot of that money goes to the Feds.

Oh BTW, if the airport is a 129 airport (meaning it has Airline service) the feds have to put up a bunch of money for taxiways, runways, etc, if the airport is just a municipal airport, it doesn't see a whole lot of fed money.
 
Outstanding. Pitting one pilot group against all others isn't a great idea for union solidarity.....well, maybe just ALPA.

Thankfully certain initiatives are ran and directed by national policy and thus individual pilot groups reach an appropriate position on certain policies so that no one pilot group is being pitted against one another, thus increasing union solidarity.

In theory.
 
Add to that in CA, I'm assessed a tax for my airplane, add to that, you land at any major airport, you are assessed a landing fee.

Here's the problem, I don't think a lot of that money goes to the Feds.

As I understand it, the landing fees are not an issue of federal policy but rather either state or local country policies.

If you have an issue with local governments charging landing fees I'd suggest you take that fight to the appropriate arena.

You're right though, the money doesn't go to the feds. Why should it?

It's county or state land, that is thus maintain by the appropriate county or state agency (DOT, Airport Authority, respectively).

I suppose some people will never be happy. I know that if I have to fly somewhere, I'm looking for the cheapest fuel, tie-down fee, and no landing fee. As I'm sure you do as well, which is why you don't take your own plane into SFO or LAX right?
 
No but those municipalities (SFO, LAX) do take landing fees, yet they receive fed dollars. I also don't know but would bet the majority of 100LL tax goes to the state or local, with a small amount to the feds. To be honest I don't think either you or I can answer if a 135/121 operator lands at a towered airport, if that landing fee goes to the feds or the locals.
 
I'm fairly certain that those companies pay a certain fee for ramp access or gate access. Thus no landing fee. But the fee for the gate/ramp access goes to the county.

Majority of companies own or rent their gate space at various airports, which were purchased from the airport authority or local county government governing body or rent it from that body.

The majority of federal fees from 121 operators come in the size of taxes levied on passenger tickets and cargo sales.
 
We will never reach a consensus on user fees. I will state this though:

LifeGuard Flights, Angel Flight, Corporate Angel member companies with a patient on board the aircraft should be exempt from user fees.
 
After reading for about an hour, I finally decided to put in my 2 cents. I never made it to the end of the discussion, so don't get all mad if I say something that has already been said.




User Fees = Much more than the death of GA. Last I remember, on of the reason's for airlines wanting to put user fee's into practice was because of all the conjestion of the NAS. I just want everyone who reads this to think about this for a second. Do you realy think it is GA that is causing the delays at LAX, JFK, ATL, IAH, ORD, SFO, LAS, etc.? How many people actually fly into airports like that in even a G-5? Not to many. They don't want to hold for even 5 minutes because it's just as expensive for them as it is for an airline. It's not a matter of the airways being conjested. When was the last time there was a mid-air between a 737 and a 182? Or a 737 and any other airplane for that matter. The problem is not with the NAS. The problem lies in the availible sapce on the ground, and all the new regional airlines flying a larger volume of smaller airplanes into major airports. Why do you think that in ZLA there is always flow control restrictions into LAS/LAX? THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RUNWAYS-TARMAC FOR ALL THE AIRPLANES! Is this the fault of the GA? No. It's the fault of those people who don't like hearing airplanes that bought a house next to an airport.

Lets use a semi-related example of places being shut down or restriced. I come from a family of drag racers. My grandfather was one of the founding members of the RoadKings, a well know car club from Burbank, Ca. He has pictures of him racing at Pamona Raceway as a young man, when it was surrounded by open fields. Now, as it sits today, there is houses all around, and you can no longer race there unless it's a nationally sactioned event. The neighbors who bought houses RIGHT NIEXT TO A DRAGSTRIP, no longer care for the noise. So it has essentially been all but shut down. The point is, shut down an airport, and everyone has to use the one next door which leads to conjestion. Conjestion is what the falacy of an overhaul of the ATC system is based upon.

It's not a matter of a bad ATC system, or conjested airspace. It's a matter of not having enough ground to park all the airplanes. Does any one remember how packed the tarmack was after 9/11. Airplanes were being parked on taxiways and closed runways. We currently operate the best, most efficent and safest air traffic system IN THE WORLD. The pictures of the airports in the days after 9/11 attest to that. An overhaul to newer technology might or might not be needed. But user fee's are not the answer. I am all for a "pilot tax." In other words, I'd be happy to pay a yearly tax to have the luxury to use my pilots license. And, I am what is considered a "professional pilot." I fly to make money. But I also fly for pleasure. And if I have to start to pay for a weather brief, or to file IFR, I won't. I won't fly. And this will have absolutely zero affect on the airlines. Because I don't use the same airports as the airlines, and I rarely use the same airspace (only when they are in a climb or descent leaving or comming).

For all of us who fly----DON'T LET USER FEE'S HAPPEN. I got into this industry because I like to fly, for work or for money. And if you take away the pleasure aspect of it, I, as well as many other pilots I know, will be hurt in the pocket book by this. And many of the schools that train pilots will also be hurt by it. The US economy as a whole will be hurt by it as well. It won't be a big impact at first, but the affects will be long lasting. In the US, we train as many pilots that stay here in the US as we do that live abroad. They will stop comming, because the cost will no longer be worth them comming and bringing there money here. Think of placees like Florida that flourish in the winter from snowbirds, and slow way down in the summer. Imagine a perpetual summer for those communities that are only there because the local airport trains 300-400 foriegn pilots a year. There money will no longer be put into the US economy.

Don't look at it just as "I don't want to pay user fees." Because it's not just about us paying. It's also about the deeper economic impact that it will have on Asian/Indian/Eropean/etc. pilots comming to the US to get their certifications as well.

Join AOPA, write your congressmen/wemon about this. And educate the public about it as well. When you start talking to poeple and they find out your a pilot, let them know about user fees, and why they to should be against it. And let them know that the videos that some of the airlines are playing about GA causing them to be delayed are completely false!

Just say no to User Fee's:nana2:.

Edit: Quote it if you want because you don't agree. I am not open for discusstion on this. Don't expect a reply.
 
After reading for about an hour, I finally decided to put in my 2 cents. I never made it to the end of the discussion, so don't get all mad if I say something that has already been said.




User Fees = Much more than the death of GA. Last I remember, on of the reason's for airlines wanting to put user fee's into practice was because of all the conjestion of the NAS. I just want everyone who reads this to think about this for a second. Do you realy think it is GA that is causing the delays at LAX, JFK, ATL, IAH, ORD, SFO, LAS, etc.? How many people actually fly into airports like that in even a G-5? Not to many. They don't want to hold for even 5 minutes because it's just as expensive for them as it is for an airline. It's not a matter of the airways being conjested. When was the last time there was a mid-air between a 737 and a 182? Or a 737 and any other airplane for that matter. The problem is not with the NAS. The problem lies in the availible sapce on the ground, and all the new regional airlines flying a larger volume of smaller airplanes into major airports. Why do you think that in ZLA there is always flow control restrictions into LAS/LAX? THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RUNWAYS-TARMAC FOR ALL THE AIRPLANES! Is this the fault of the GA? No. It's the fault of those people who don't like hearing airplanes that bought a house next to an airport.

Lets use a semi-related example of places being shut down or restriced. I come from a family of drag racers. My grandfather was one of the founding members of the RoadKings, a well know car club from Burbank, Ca. He has pictures of him racing at Pamona Raceway as a young man, when it was surrounded by open fields. Now, as it sits today, there is houses all around, and you can no longer race there unless it's a nationally sactioned event. The neighbors who bought houses RIGHT NIEXT TO A DRAGSTRIP, no longer care for the noise. So it has essentially been all but shut down. The point is, shut down an airport, and everyone has to use the one next door which leads to conjestion. Conjestion is what the falacy of an overhaul of the ATC system is based upon.

It's not a matter of a bad ATC system, or conjested airspace. It's a matter of not having enough ground to park all the airplanes. Does any one remember how packed the tarmack was after 9/11. Airplanes were being parked on taxiways and closed runways. We currently operate the best, most efficent and safest air traffic system IN THE WORLD. The pictures of the airports in the days after 9/11 attest to that. An overhaul to newer technology might or might not be needed. But user fee's are not the answer. I am all for a "pilot tax." In other words, I'd be happy to pay a yearly tax to have the luxury to use my pilots license. And, I am what is considered a "professional pilot." I fly to make money. But I also fly for pleasure. And if I have to start to pay for a weather brief, or to file IFR, I won't. I won't fly. And this will have absolutely zero affect on the airlines. Because I don't use the same airports as the airlines, and I rarely use the same airspace (only when they are in a climb or descent leaving or comming).

For all of us who fly----DON'T LET USER FEE'S HAPPEN. I got into this industry because I like to fly, for work or for money. And if you take away the pleasure aspect of it, I, as well as many other pilots I know, will be hurt in the pocket book by this. And many of the schools that train pilots will also be hurt by it. The US economy as a whole will be hurt by it as well. It won't be a big impact at first, but the affects will be long lasting. In the US, we train as many pilots that stay here in the US as we do that live abroad. They will stop comming, because the cost will no longer be worth them comming and bringing there money here. Think of placees like Florida that flourish in the winter from snowbirds, and slow way down in the summer. Imagine a perpetual summer for those communities that are only there because the local airport trains 300-400 foriegn pilots a year. There money will no longer be put into the US economy.

Don't look at it just as "I don't want to pay user fees." Because it's not just about us paying. It's also about the deeper economic impact that it will have on Asian/Indian/Eropean/etc. pilots comming to the US to get their certifications as well.

Join AOPA, write your congressmen/wemon about this. And educate the public about it as well. When you start talking to poeple and they find out your a pilot, let them know about user fees, and why they to should be against it. And let them know that the videos that some of the airlines are playing about GA causing them to be delayed are completely false!

Just say no to User Fee's:nana2:.

Edit: Quote it if you want because you don't agree. I am not open for discusstion on this. Don't expect a reply.

Excellent post. Agree 100%, Im just too lazy to type all that out.
 
PCL,

I remember having this debate with you a couple of years ago at the other place. I don't feel like sifting through my old posts over there, but I'm pretty sure you were pro user fees since it would limit the amount of new pilots entering the system. Is that still how you feel?

Yes, I favor user fees, but mostly just for corporate aviation. There is certainly something to be said for limiting the incoming supply of new air line pilots by raising the cost of training, but I think that could probably be better accomplished by raising the minimum requirements to hold a Part 121 job rather than taxing true GA.

"About" is what? 6 months?

No, "about" is somewhere around 10-12 months. I'd have to dig out my logbook to see for sure, and I really don't care enough to do that.

Also, was that before or after you paid to be a FO at Gulfstream?

Simultaneously and after. Any other questions?

Yeah, wearing a lanyard certainly will show my support for the union. Oh boy. Phil quakes in his boots every time he sees someone walking around with a cheap-o ALPA lanyard...

Solidarity is what scares management and convinces them to move on the contract. I suggest that you read "Confessions of a Union Buster" by Marty Levitt.

RE Crewpass, no it wasn't a national officer it was an LEC guy but he clearly did not state "non-union", he stated "non-ALPA", as in screw UPS guys, SWA guys, AA guys, AirTran guys, etc.

LEC guys don't speak for national policy. They are one vote out of 200+ on the BOD.

There's a difference between non-union and non-ALPA.

Yes. Both are bad, but one is worse.

If rhetoric of "free-loading" were to be used, didn't the airlines get a bailout after 9/11?

No, they didn't. The ATSB loans were blocked by the scumbags in the Shrub administration. The two loans that were approved were only approved after the ATSB demanded massive concessions from the employees before they would consider authorizing it.
 
Relax.

Obestar is the head of the committee that deals with the FAA and he is dead set against user fees. They will not pass his committee.

I believe the ranking minority member is, too.
 
Back
Top