$100 user fee

[GX]

I wasn't aware that you were in corporate aviation. In that case, you have the NBAA to fight for your intests. And I would expect them to do just that. Just like I expect my union to fight for my interests. Our interests are not intertwined, so I'm sorry, but we're just not going to agree.
I am thinking about "the team." But we're not on the same team, buddy.

This coming from the guy who says

Oh, I fully intend to get some GA flying in. I've actually been talking to a couple of flying clubs and flight schools locally about getting checked out.

Did I take it out of context, again? Post something "outdated"? Do these clubs, and schools know that you don't care if they survive, and are actively working to eliminate their sector of the industry? If they don't they should. If it was/were? my school, I'd politely decline you services, and send you packing. Fox in the henhouse. You're not Joe Schmuckatelli coming in to fly airplanes, you're the VP of ALPA looking to ensure that I "pay my fair share", regardless of the cost to my business, sink or swim.

I fly my own airplane for business, and a little training. A single piston. I am in flight school, and fly those planes for training. Both are equally important to me.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I object to that characterization. I don't "have it in" for you. I just don't believe that GA pays it's fair share to the Aviation Trust Fund, and I want you to start doing so. Just as my belief in a progressive tax code doesn't mean that I "have it in" for those making more money. It's a question of fairness. Reasonable people can disagree on what is "fair" without demonizing each other. Or at least, they should be able to.

I just don't get this. I can take off, talk to no ATC and land somewhere. My 2500 pound aircraft does very very little wear to a runway, as opposed to your 100K+ aircraft. It's clear to me and everyone here that you don't give 2 cents about anyone but yourself. Sadly, that seems to be the case with a lot of senior airline pilots. I've got mine, fend for yourself

 

[GX]

I object to that characterization. I don't "have it in" for you. I just don't believe that GA pays it's fair share to the Aviation Trust Fund, and I want you to start doing so. Just as my belief in a progressive tax code doesn't mean that I "have it in" for those making more money. It's a question of fairness. Reasonable people can disagree on what is "fair" without demonizing each other. Or at least, they should be able to.

SHOULD.Until that someone, who has the ability to influence decisions from a leadership position, has vociferously spoken out against the sector of the industry that affects the other group the most. You have a track record that spans over 4 years that speaks to eliminating GA. Further, you advocate making pilot training so cost prohibitive that entering the marketplace isn't profitable. Your own words, not mine. You have stated it's about "fairness", when it reality, it's about saving your ass. That's the reality of it.

 

[Seggy]

GX, don't stroke out ok?

 

[GX]

GX, don't stroke out ok?

Oh I won't. Don't worry. It won't be from this. It'll be from the 119 degrees yesterday. Thanks for the concern, bro.

 

[Ian_J]

GX, don't stroke out ok?

Yeah that... relax, buddy. ATN is communicating very calmly and you're going through hysterics.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I object to that characterization. I don't "have it in" for you. I just don't believe that GA pays it's fair share to the Aviation Trust Fund, and I want you to start doing so.

So - how much do you think is "fair" for a business flight of an aircraft? As the proposal is written, business use of a turboprop or piston is the same $100 fee as for a Gulfstream.

Let's look at what the AATF actually pays for though:

EAS - this is a benefit to airlines (not GA), correct?
ATC/NextGen - good for everyone, but mostly helps airlines.
Airport Improvements - 84% of this money has historically been spent on primary airports, essentially only benefiting airlines. GA fields get about 14% - these are 90% of US airports... http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/media/aip_innovative_financing_options.pdf

 

[Mike H]

ATN_Pilot's position on this has been hashed out pretty thoroughly before. I don't agree with him, but I understand why he doesn't want to expend the energy to defend his position for the umpteenth time in a new thread. I don't like how he feels about user fee's, but ignorant definitely isn't the word I'd use to describe it.

Not ignorant in the least, but, what's a better word ... conflicted? On the one hand, he's solidly against the Burgeoise and their GA toys that they get and use at the expense of the proletariat. On the other hand, user fees are something his Airline Bosses approve of and it puts him in the awkward position of inadvertantly being seen as a Management Stooge if he's not careful. It just doesn't fit the Dialectic very neatly.

 

[SteveCostello]

I object to that characterization. I don't "have it in" for you. I just don't believe that GA pays it's fair share to the Aviation Trust Fund, and I want you to start doing so. Just as my belief in a progressive tax code doesn't mean that I "have it in" for those making more money. It's a question of fairness. Reasonable people can disagree on what is "fair" without demonizing each other. Or at least, they should be able to.

I would argue that the recreational GA crowd (and even the smaller business outfits) is akin to the lower and middle class, and the 121 operations are the 1%ers. That being the case, I'd completely agree with you - since 121 are the big money folks and benefit the most from ATC and airport improvement programs, they can continue to contribute to the lion's share of the so-called trust fund. Pretty fair, right?

I don't have it 'in' for 121, either. There's got to be a good middle ground here. But penalizing GA to the point that it runs all of the recreational pilots out of the mix is just flat out unfair. My wife and I make a decent living. Flying recreationally is already a $1,000 a month affair, and we are weighing whether that makes any sense for us. Users fees would nearly double that. Fuel and rental costs are already incredibly expensive, making this an activity that is already fairly exclusive. Much more, and recreational GA will be exclusively for people with significant means. I just don't see how that benefits anyone.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Did I take it out of context, again? Post something "outdated"?

No, but you continue to twist my words. I'm not sure why I even continue speaking to you with the attitude that you've displayed. I'm trying to be respectful towards you, but you aren't making it easy.

Do these clubs, and schools know that you don't care if they survive, and are actively working to eliminate their sector of the industry?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I want everyone to "survive." I don't want to see any sector of the industry "eliminated." What I want to see is everyone paying their fair share. If your assertion is that paying their fair share is going to put an entire segment of the aviation industry out of business, then I think that's absurd.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Your own words, not mine.

Those aren't my own words, those are your gross distortions of my words.

 

[jtrain609]

I hate the internet.

 

[ShyFlyer]

To be quite honest, ALPA/Airlines want to "protect their interest", meaning they want more High Value Customers in their first class seats (ala, Pre-9/11). Post 9/11 and the security enhancements turned many of these HVC towards the corporate/fractional side of aviation. Couple that with poor morale at the airlines, resulting in poor customer service resulted in airlines seeing the FC cabin getting less full.

What better way to force those people back into the airline mode, let's just tax (or fee) them into it! Awesome, high-fiving white guys all around (for those of you who remember "Almost Live", TV show from the 90's, you know what I'm talking about).

With more and more military pilots wanting nothing to do with airline drama/bs, you're going need those pilots coming from the GA world...don't bend them over any more than they already are.

This, in a nutshell, is what I think the real "thrust" behind the imposing user fees is coming from.

I hate saying this, but let's just let GA die. It will be the only way certain segments will realize that GA wasn't the enemy at all.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So - how much do you think is "fair" for a business flight of an aircraft? As the proposal is written, business use of a turboprop or piston is the same $100 fee as for a Gulfstream.

Well, that's where a reasonable debate could take place. I can easily see your point that the guy in his C172 isn't the same burden on the system that Mitt Romney in his Gulfstream is. A way to solve that would be an increase in the gas tax rather than using a per-flight fee. I'm open to numerous suggestions of how to accomplish a fair system. I just don't believe the current system is even close to fair.

EAS - this is a benefit to airlines (not GA), correct?

No, this is a benefit to the local communities. The airlines have, for the most part, gotten out of the EAS business. Only a handful of very small carriers still participate in EAS flying, such as Silver. It's no longer profitable after all of the cuts to the program. The communities without regular commercial air service are the ones who benefit from this program.

ATC/NextGen - good for everyone, but mostly helps airlines.

Agreed.

Airport Improvements - 84% of this money has historically been spent on primary airports, essentially only benefiting airlines. GA fields get about 14% - these are 90% of US airports... http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/media/aip_innovative_financing_options.pdf

Airlines contribute $12 billion to the Trust Fund annually. General aviation (including corporate aviation) contributes $200 million. That's about 1.6% of the Trust Fund receipts. Do you think this disparity is fair?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Not ignorant in the least, but, what's a better word ... conflicted? On the one hand, he's solidly against the Burgeoise and their GA toys that they get and use at the expense of the proletariat. On the other hand, user fees are something his Airline Bosses approve of and it puts him in the awkward position of inadvertantly being seen as a Management Stooge if he's not careful. It just doesn't fit the Dialectic very neatly.

I'm more than happy to work with airline management where our interests are congruent. In fact, I would say that it would be a pretty sad state of affairs if unions were to refuse to do so. That's just cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's not pragmatic, and I'm a pragmatist.

 

[Mike H]

That's the spirit, comrade!

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Airlines contribute $12 billion to the Trust Fund annually. General aviation (including corporate aviation) contributes $200 million. That's about 1.6% of the Trust Fund receipts. Do you think this disparity is fair?

Well, the airline's customers are the ones paying the PFC's not the airline's themselves. You don't think Fedex & UPS get a free ride by not paying PFC's?

I think "fair" would be to charge EVERYONE an excise tax on fuel, at the same rates.

 

[USMCmech]

Airlines contribute $12 billion to the Trust Fund annually. General aviation (including corporate aviation) contributes $200 million. That's about 1.6% of the Trust Fund receipts. Do you think this disparity is fair?

I'm not sure exactly where the "fair" balance is, but the relationship with GA and the aiviation industry is much more complex than who pays into the AATF.

The entire ATC system was built and designed for the airlines. Without it the airlines can not exist. Other than corporate aviation, GA uses very little of ATC's resources and is rarely the cause of any significant delays. Delays happen because airline hubs like ATL are over crowded, while 99.999% of GA traffic goes to reliever airports.

Well, that's where a reasonable debate could take place. I can easily see your point that the guy in his C172 isn't the same burden on the system that Mitt Romney in his Gulfstream is. A way to solve that would be an increase in the gas tax rather than using a per-flight fee. I'm open to numerous suggestions of how to accomplish a fair system. I just don't believe the current system is even close to fair.

Unless I'm grossly mistaken, AOPA has consistently been calling for an increase in fuel taxes rather than a user fee system if the FAA requires more revenue. I would find that more than fair.

 

[darrenf]

Airlines contribute $12 billion to the Trust Fund annually. General aviation (including corporate aviation) contributes $200 million. That's about 1.6% of the Trust Fund receipts. Do you think this disparity is fair?

I guess that depends. What is the percentage of people in the air? Do the airlines carry 98.4 percent of the pax?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Well, the airline's customers are the ones paying the PFC's not the airline's themselves.

It's the same thing. The airlines can only charge a certain price point on a ticket before demand drops off. That means that all of the taxes have to fit within that price point, reducing the amount of revenue that the airlines are able to keep. So whether it's a customer paying or the airline paying directly, it's still really the airlines paying.