Better start your flight training soon...

[SFCC/UND]

Got to love Bush, I mean Obama.

 

[juan valdez]

Stop posting nonsense like this! you dont have as much experience as Velociped! He even said so!

:rotfl:

 

[Minuteman]

So, if AOPA and the NBAA want to continue fighting against the change, then that is well within their right. However, by doing so MIGHT screw over general aviation MORE instead of actively lobbying HOW the rules for user fees are put in place.

So do you agree that Europe has a lousy implementation of user fees?

It seems like the folks who suffer the biggest burden are the ones who are not using the system to make money. So, let's have a pricing schedule that's based on the number of paying passengers and tons of freight.

 

[Sisson2011]

Interesting post. I toured the OKC tower/tracon last week. They kept making a big deal out of there latest training. They have been told to view us (the pilots) as "customers" not "users". They are already getting the ATC into the mind set it seems like. Then there's..

"Tower, Cessna 702 no joy on the runway going missed"
"Cessna 702, roger, $10 on the missed, and another $15 for the vectors back around for another ILS."
"Pilot to self.. my personal minimums just got A LOT lower"

 

[Hacker15e]

Interesting post. I toured the OKC tower/tracon last week. They kept making a big deal out of there latest training. They have been told to view us (the pilots) as "customers" not "users". They are already getting the ATC into the mind set it seems like.

That's standard "customer service" lip service. It has nothing to do with some impending change to how ATC service is funded.

 

[Low&Slow]

...User fees are coming. So instead of trying to fight them coming which they are no matter how much one writes on the internet how bad they are, try to influence their change to have the littlest impact as possible.

Because it's the right thing to do.

Government is an extremely harmful, invasive species that has proven over and over that they can't be trusted and needs to be minimized, controlled, and even eliminated in some places. Give them a foothold and they will just grow and expand into other areas, choking freedom and industry growth, while promoting dependancy and socialism. Don't be so naive as to think that they will stop at user fees once their foot is in that door.

It also is quite obvious that implementation of these fees would be contrary and detrimental to the FAA's responsibility for industry promotion and ensuring safety.

 

[Malko]

Problem:

Square Peg (# of a/c)

Round Hole (capacity of airports)

 

[Malko]

YEP! That is the point. They are coming so fight on how they are changed, not how to try to prevent them.

So if Colgan mgmt decided they are going to do 'x' and the pilot group does not like it, what's going to happen?

Is ALPA going to:

A - fight like hell to make sure 'x' doesn't happen

or

B - roll over and take it, but say well maybe if the mgmt does 'y' and 'z', then maybe we'll accept 'x'


Option B may end up being the result, but I have no doubt that 'A' would be the first and hardest fought option.

I'm just sayin.....

 

[Murdoughnut]

Government is an extremely harmful, invasive species that has proven over and over that they can't be trusted and needs to be minimized, controlled, and even eliminated in some places.

True, but it's not like private industry is any better - lest you think companies would self regulate themselves enough not to dump crap in our rivers.

 

[Baronpilot244]

And likely all the other stuff we got for free will go too. Duats/duat, FSS, all kinds of things. It costs around $10 for a weather briefing in UK and thus there are a good number of VFR into IMC accidents because folks don't want to pay - however these accidents don't occur as frequently as one would think 'cos nobody can afford to fly over there.

"Cessna 1234, say type approach requested"
"Uh, think I'll take the ILS to 24R, how much is that?"
"1234, its $30 plus tax, sir"
"Jeez, 30 bucks? How much is an NDB?"

OR!

"Cessna 1234, your credit card was declined - GO AROUND!"

 

[Barty]

Agreed. The "big deal" seems to be the GA attitude of entitlement is on display for all to see. Fatcats and bigwigs whining about user fees and the FLAPS falling right into line to protect their entitlement.

What entitlement? We pay excise taxes already.

That's why I bought a Vmax. If you can afford an airplane and fuel, then find a way to afford the fees for using the ATC system. If you can't, fly VFR and stay out of controlled airspace. I'll bet you can find PLENTY of that around the U.S.

Hmm...you continue to act as if we don't pay taxes already that are supposed to be allocated to that purpose to begin with.

Frankly, its about time. Talk about a WASTE of money and energy resources. "Hey, let's fire up the Piper and fly to Missoula for a burger."

So I guess you're opposed to people owning boats, cars, motorcycles, RVs, etc., purely for pleasure use as well? This is some people's hobby, no different than people who own any of the things mentioned above. We do it to have fun and to enjoy the thrill and freedom and maybe from time to time even use them to take a vacation somewhere. Flying commercially is as about as exciting as getting on the subway. The scenery out the window is better, but the ride is horribly uninspiring.

Well, if you KNEW anything about airspace management, you'd know the airspace around NYC knits ALL the airports together. So what happens at JFK, LGA and EWR is also effected by TEB, HPN and all the GA airports in the area. So, the answer to your smartass question is...plenty.

Odd, but I've never seen any delay at ATL that could be attributed to what is going on at PDK, RYY, FTY or LZU. A80's airspace is carved up so that the GA traffic is kept seperate from the airline stuff and vice-versa and one should never have an impact on another except if there's an emergency. TEB is the only airport I can think of that *might* have an effect on the NY airports, simply because of its proximity. Even then, it is no closer to any of them than FTY is to ATL.

*MOST* GA operates out of airports that receive little to no airline service to begin with. Most of us go out of our way to avoid those with regular airline service, simply because it is a PITA to get in/out of them! Given the budget I have to fly on, the last thing in the world I want to have to put up with are delay vectors or being held up waiting on the ramp with the engine running trying to get two words in to be able to taxi back to the runway!

We pretty much went where we wanted to in South Texas. Perhaps GA should move their training sites to places like that instead of South Florida, etc.

I'll concede that it is stupid to put a bunch of student pilots in areas like that. The problem they have is getting people wanting to move to South Texas for 6 months (or however long it takes) to complete the training. At the same time, unless those schools are regularly flying in/out of MIA (I seriously doubt this) then they aren't occupying the same airspace, and ergo, not having much (if any) effect on the arrival rate into that airport.

Your political tirade aside, if you own an airplane, you've allocated your resources to do so. I guess you'll have to remain VFR if you don't want to participate in the NAS. If you do, pay up.

Again, we already do pay. User fees are no more than a poorly veiled attempt by the airlines to attempt to get a few airplanes off frequency because they think it will magically make their airplanes arrive on time. They don't want to concede that their on time performance is largely of their own doing by substituting two 60-70 passenger aircraft for a 150 passenger one to fly the same route. Case in point, last time I flew from IAH to ATL, I was on a stinkin' RJ! While I sat waiting for my flight to leave, there was another on the same route, leaving about 45 minutes previous. Another was slated for about an hour after my flight left. I know it would be a horrible, horrible travesty if people only had the option of being able to catch that flight every two hours instead of every hour.

I guess I'm also only supposed to fly somewhere on vacation if I take an airline, or else only go when I know there is going to be PERFECT weather to/from, even if my departure and destination are in areas well out of the way from any significant commercial traffic.

 

[Barty]

True, but it's not like private industry is any better - lest you think companies would self regulate themselves enough not to dump crap in our rivers.

I think we're so used to the few that are reckless in their actions as businesses that we just come to assume that everyone will operate like that.

You'd probably find that most would not just wantonly wreck the environment because they realize the consequences. Using the government in the way we have, we're using an axe in place of a scalpel to try to correct the problem. We have regulations that are meant to reign in the few, but end up affecting everyone because it has to have the appearance of being impartial. So you have companies having to spend billions a year collectively trying to comply with these regulations that go far beyond the scope of that business in the first place.

 

[Velocipede]

If someone says "You're likely to not get re-elected," they tend to pay attention. AOPA would, it seems, rather get their members in a furor rather than go about this the logical way.

:rotfl:

While your point is valid, GA proponents don't command enough votes to influence the local dogcatcher election. What makes you think ANY legislator at ANY level gives a rat's ass about GA pilots unless he is one himself. And who believes even he would vote against user fees if the general public was in favor of them?

I don't owe Mark crap. If he gets his panties in a wad about that comment he'll tell me, he doesn't need you to speak for him. .

Wow. Lots of anger there, mike. A little guilt over an ad hominen attack on someone who has demonstrated the balls to DO something rather than just TALK about something.

I still think the problems in the system as it currently operates are because of the airline over-saturation of a minimal number of airports. Limited resources spread too thinly + no allowances for the vagaries of weather = overloaded system.

True, but any reduction in demand eases the problem. I'd bet the economy and swine flu fears will provide more of a reduction than any amount of user fees.

Why the GA guys, corporate or flibs alike, should pay for the idiocy that is the current airline hub-and-spoke system, and the way that it overloads the ATC system is beyond me.

Well, simply put, you want the services, you pay for them. That alone will direct the GA types where they belong...into the VFR system and the satellite airports. To counter your argument, why are the airlines forced to support a system so well-to-do types can engage in their GA "pastime".

And I'm so sorry that my boss' time is too important to waste while the TSA schmucks confiscate his toothpaste, and that once he gets on the cattle car, the level of service he receives is equivalent to that of a prisoner in Rikers.

Yeah, the elitist argument ALWAYS carries a lot of weight. :banghead:

We recently made a transcon trip...and they were able to maintain their diet by ordering specific catering.

Blah, blah, blah. Nice story. And a great example of elitism at work. Nice to know there are people in America "too good" to rub elbows with the great unwashed.

These are the people that user fees are targeted at. They're also the people that have sucked all the FLAPS into their "righteous indignation" over user fees.

The truth of the matter is that if the average GA pilot simply continues to operate the way they do today, they would incur NO user fees. Fly VFR and stay away from controlled airspace and it won't cost you a dime. But, if you WANT to be puppets of corporate fatcats, be my guest.

This was before my time but had a very good briefing on the age 65 rule issue from the FEDEX MEC Chair who is leaving. There are a lot of correlations between user fees and the age 65 battle.

User fees are a losing battle...

NO! Trying to talk sense? Are you kidding. Never try to teach a pig to sing. Its a waste of your time and it irritates the pig! :laff:

THEY ARE COMING!!!!!!!

So, if AOPA and the NBAA want to continue fighting against the change, then that is well within their right. However, by doing so MIGHT screw over general aviation MORE instead of actively lobbying HOW the rules for user fees are put in place.

Or they could just continue to be NBAA dupes. Either way, whining about it on JC will accomplish ZERO. The good part about it is the more time they waste squealing here, the less time they have to productively oppose the legislation.

What leads you to believe that user fee's would fix the alleged airspace problem?

Well, simple logic. You stop trying to put 10 lbs of stuff in a 5 lb bag.

The only thing user fee's are going to do is create a massive loss in jobs, from aircraft manufactures to flight instructors to A&P's to FBO employee's.

Sorry to break this to you, but if you lost EVERY GA job in America it no one would notice. Because, realistically, not that many people work in GA. A TOTAL loss of the industry wouldn't even cause a blip in the U.S. economy.

User fee's are going to drastically reduce the use of GA. Sure makes sense to put even more people on the street, when everyone and their brother is pushing for ideas to employ more people.

So, your argument is simply fear. That would be effective IF it were true. As it is, its nothing more than a red herring.

If the airlines cut 5% of the number of departures, but used larger airplanes to cover the capacity, there would be no uproar of "GA plugging up the NAS".

There's a good idea. Let's get rid of some professional pilot jobs so GA boys can FLAP around for fun. I'd wage the loss of one professional pilot income would have MORE effect on the American economy than the loss of EVERY job at an FBO.

SNA has 2 runways, one is used exclusively by GA. While I've never flown into SNA, I have taken a 172 into BOS. Its the same deal there. You have to know what is going on, ATC will keep you out of the way, and it will all work out. Velo, All the problems that you have mentioned about SNA are not a problem with the NAS, its with stupid pilots. User fees won't fix stupid.

Exactly. Runway capacity isn't the problem at SNA. Its the FLAPS operating along the beach with their heads up and locked. I say charge them to sightsee and it would keep them out in the desert where they belong.

That's standard "customer service" lip service. It has nothing to do with some impending change to how ATC service is funded.

Exactly. That argument presupposes a "right" to fly. Guess what boys and girls. Flying isn't a right. Its a privilege and an expensive one at that. YOu want to play, pay. Simple really.

 

[jtrain609]

If you guys are the voices that are trying to fight this in the real world then general aviation is screwed.

Ya'll are using horrible emotional arguments based on your direct involvement with aviation, not pragmatic and logical reasoning that would explain to somebody in charge that GA airplanes use a VERY small part of the NAS, and while some might call it "free riding," the number of GA planes under 5,000 lbs. that are actually clogging things up and/or using resources more than what they're paying in to the system is akin to blaming road bikers in Park City for road damage. Yeah sure there are lots of road bikers up here, but those things weigh 20 pounds compared to my GMC Jimmy's 5350 pounds.

You guys are getting caught up in the idea that Cessna 172's need to get caught up in this, and if you were smart you'd start lobbying folks like the AOPA to cut loose anybody over 5,000 lbs. and start focusing on the airplanes you're thinking about. Whether you like it or not, GA includes everything from LSA's to Boeing BBJ's. If it's operated Part 91, then it's going to fall under this umberlla that is considered general aviation.

5,000 lbs. would probably be a pretty good point. That's everything up through about a Beech Baron (5,100 lbs. gross), and I'll contend if you can afford a Baron, you can probably afford some user fee's. I'd contend that most planes over about 5,000 lbs. are being used by either INCREDIBLY wealthy Americans as toys (which is where the outrage will be), or business aviation (who can take the hit for all I care), where planes under that weight are probably either trainers or used in such a limited role in the NAS that they're largely not in the way or using resources.

Try to protect it all if you want, but you won't be able to. If I were you guys, I'd be lobbying AOPA incredibly hard to start protecting smaller GA planes instead of trying to be so inclusive of BBJ's.

 

[BajtheJino]

There are a lot of correlations between user fees and the age 65 battle.

If this was serious post I am utterly baffled by the (lack of) logic. Your argument has zero correlation.



Velo, you rail against the elitism of GA and I have to ask: As a person that has had zero involvement with GA how can you even begin to have an opinion? Do you deny that the airports with the worst congestion have little to no GA activity at them? Do JetA and LL not have the added cost of taxes? Where do those taxes go? All taxpayers pay into the system. So, by being a tax payer 2x (fuel and taxes) why are GA flyers lower than the airline you represent? Maybe if a few more guys like you were furloughed and a plane or two parked the others would make more money and the congestion would go down. After all, not that many people are flying now are they? Hmmm....

If you guys are the voices that are trying to fight this in the real world then general aviation is screwed.

We are so lucky to have you!

 

[Seggy]

Thank you Jtrain!

 

[Seggy]

If this was serious post I am utterly baffled by the (lack of) logic. Your argument has zero correlation.

The correlation is how to handle the situation. They are two completely different things, but if you don't lobby HOW to change the rule, then you are going to get steamrolled like jtrain illustrated.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

While your point is valid, GA proponents don't command enough votes to influence the local dogcatcher election. What makes you think ANY legislator at ANY level gives a rat's ass about GA pilots unless he is one himself. And who believes even he would vote against user fees if the general public was in favor of them?

Do you realize how many congress people utilize corporate jets to conduct business? I'm SURE they understand the vitality of the industry, even if for nothing more than being a source of well paying jobs.

Well, simply put, you want the services, you pay for them. That alone will direct the GA types where they belong...into the VFR system and the satellite airports. To counter your argument, why are the airlines forced to support a system so well-to-do types can engage in their GA "pastime".

Oh, so all the corporate jets must now stay below FL180? Great proposal.

Yeah, the elitist argument ALWAYS carries a lot of weight. :banghead:

There is nothing elitist about it. Sure, some folks use their airplanes for nothing but pleasure trips, but thats their perogative; after all, they made the money, why shouldn't they get to decide how to spend it? If they're not allowed to use their airplane for pleasure, then you shouldn't be allowed to jumpseat for vacation.

But why is it that you continue to assume that the people on the jet always end up at a black tie affair sipping champagne and eating caviar? Why can't you accept that it is a business tool? Time is money in business. Think about how much your company wastes while sitting in line at a hub airport.

These are the people that user fees are targeted at. They're also the people that have sucked all the FLAPS into their "righteous indignation" over user fees.

But for what reason? GA relieves the loads at the major hub airports. If every business person in the world took the airlines instead of GA, imagine the increased necessity for more RJ flights on the schedule. That would undoubtedly lead to more airline delays. For that, I think you should be appreciative.

When was the last time ATC told you that ATL arrivals were on a gate hold due to saturation at PDK or FTY? How about guys going into EWR that were put in a hold due to saturation at TEB? Never, I'd be willing to bet.

The truth of the matter is that if the average GA pilot simply continues to operate the way they do today, they would incur NO user fees. Fly VFR and stay away from controlled airspace and it won't cost you a dime. But, if you WANT to be puppets of corporate fatcats, be my guest.

You must not be familiar with Angel Flight or any of the Lifeguard flights. I believe we have/had some guys on here that flew for MedCenter Air. Some of those companies are already operating on a shoestring budget. Toss in user fees, and a very vital link in the medical chain is cut out.

Well, simple logic. You stop trying to put 10 lbs of stuff in a 5 lb bag.

I don't understand how GA is the 10 lb object. If GA is 10 lbs, regional airlines are certainly 15-20 lbs on any given day of the week.

Sorry to break this to you, but if you lost EVERY GA job in America it no one would notice. Because, realistically, not that many people work in GA. A TOTAL loss of the industry wouldn't even cause a blip in the U.S. economy.

Holy crap dude!


$150 billion in economic impact annually. 1.2 million jobs. Those numbers don't even take into account the indirect savings in business costs that GA can offer. Imagine a production plant that suffers a catastrophic failure of an important component. You load the mechanics, tools and parts on a corporate jet and you're there in a couple of hours. The machine is back on line 6 hours after it went down. You try the same on the airlines. Half the tools get confiscated by TSA, the mechanics sit in a terminal for a total of 4 hours. The machine finally gets fixed 12 hours after it broke. Time is money man.

There's a good idea. Let's get rid of some professional pilot jobs so GA boys can FLAP around for fun. I'd wage the loss of one professional pilot income would have MORE effect on the American economy than the loss of EVERY job at an FBO.

Wishing unemployment on someone is a pretty messed up thing to do, don't you think? Especially in these times.

Grow up dude.

And how exactly DO the airlines financially "support" GA? I hear this argument time and time again, yet I see no evidence to prove it. So, prove it to me.

 

[OldTownPilot]

Velo, I just saw your thing about riding motorcycles. Lets say the DOT wanted to place transponders on all motorcycles and charge you 20 cents per mile driven ON TOP of the 50 cents or so of gas tax that you already pay to to maintain the roads. Besides all motorcyclists do is drove to a town 100 miles away for burgers, plugging up the roads for commercial truck drivers. You would be furious. Airplanes are my motorcycles. You want the freedom on your bike without excessive charges, I want my freedom in my airplane without excessive charges.

See I can make the same rash generalizations about your hobby as you do mine

 

[Toonces]

So if Colgan mgmt decided they are going to do 'x' and the pilot group does not like it, what's going to happen?

Is ALPA going to:

A - fight like hell to make sure 'x' doesn't happen

or

B - roll over and take it, but say well maybe if the mgmt does 'y' and 'z', then maybe we'll accept 'x'


Option B may end up being the result, but I have no doubt that 'A' would be the first and hardest fought option.

I'm just sayin.....

I am going with option B sir. History proves Alpa likes to take it deep and hard with no lube.