$100 user fee

[GX]

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

Yeah, it's not you, it's me....

Further, you advocate making pilot training so cost prohibitive that entering the marketplace isn't profitable.

The quote in its entirety.

Reduce the tax burden on the airlines and shift some of it to the corporate and charter operators, for starters. Plus, it will reduce the number of people getting into aviation because the fees will raise the entry costs. Lower supply increases bargaining leverage.

Gross distortion, eh?

You didn't say this? This entire thread is incorrect? Funny, as I wasn't even a member of the forum at this point.
Quote unedited

Sounds like good news to me. A lower supply of pilots increases our leverage to improve our profession.

or this? Again unedited.

What I really like is re-regulation. That is the ultimate solution to the financial problems of the airlines, and it also gives us increased bargaining leverage.

Barring that, user fees that shift some tax burden to business aviation would provide a tax reduction to the airlines which would help them along, although nowhere near the benefit of regulation. It's a small patch on a big wound. But is is something. In addition, user fees on GA aircraft (a separate issue, one that has never been proposed in Washington) would reduce the supply of pilots and increase bargaining leverage. But that's not something currently being considered. User fees as proposed to this point would not affect real GA aircraft. AOPA and the NBAA love to use the term "general aviation" in this debate to get the Piper and Cessna pilots all worked up, but it's nothing but inaccurate rhetoric. Nobody has proposed user fees for GA aircraft.

Good thing it's 11am. Just enough time to go grab a bite to eat, and get on with my day. Cheerio.

 

[Murdoughnut]

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.

That's the elephant in the room AOPA doesn't want to think about - the fact that seemingly well off Americans are questioning whether GA flying still makes financial success. I was dropping about $500 a month on flying for the several years that I co-owned. When my wife and I decided to do IVF (and had to pay out of pocket) I had to sell out. Now with two kids, even with both of us making two professional salaries, I can't justify the expense anymore. It killed me to do it, but I had to hang up my wings. Maybe I'll be back someday, but by then Avgas will be $20 a gallon if it's around at all.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

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.

The Fund is about a lot more than just the ATC system. There are thousands of GA airports in this country. The airlines use a small handful, but they subsidize the Fund that keeps all of these airports maintained.

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.

The problem with AOPA's proposal is that they want the airlines to incur the same fuel tax increase. That doesn't increase GA's tax burden. It might even reduce their percentage. The only way to shift the burden is to impose a tax on GA that the airlines don't have to pay.

 

[Ian_J]

The Fund is about a lot more than just the ATC system. There are thousands of GA airports in this country. The airlines use a small handful, but they subsidize the Fund that keeps all of these airports maintained.

The problem with AOPA's proposal is that they want the airlines to incur the same fuel tax increase. That doesn't increase GA's tax burden. It might even reduce their percentage. The only way to shift the burden is to impose a tax on GA that the airlines don't have to pay.

Psst... you're not doing this:

Had this argument too many times on here, so not really interested in doing it again. Anyone who wants to know my perspective on why GA's contribution is vastly deficient can look at the old threads.

... very well.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

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.

Before there were PFC's, there were large municipal bond issues by cities that wanted airport improvements. I'm not sure that was such a terrible system. A "more fair" system would let the airlines decide where they want to fly based on the costs of leasing improved facilities. SWA/ATN/Allegiant/Spirit pay the same PFC's, but generally operate from crappier, less improved and expensive facilities. I would argue it is unfair that they subsidize DFW/ORD/ATL operations...

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Psst... you're not doing this:



... very well.

Yeah, I know.

 

[USMCmech]

The Fund is about a lot more than just the ATC system. There are thousands of GA airports in this country. The airlines use a small handful, but they subsidize the Fund that keeps all of these airports maintained.

Exactly how much federal money does it cost to maintain a small county nontowered airport?

Other airports that see a lot of corporate GA are also served by airlines the money spent on maintain those benefits both GA and airlines.

The only airports that take a significant amount of federal money would be GA reliever airports around major cities, such as Addison, Van Nyes, or Teterbro.

 

[SteveCostello]

Sidenote: I'm greatly amused that I'm tending to side with folks that I'm normally not inline with here, and against at least one of the folks I tend to agree with most on these forums. Life be cray, yo!

 

[ozziecat35]

I can't add anything to the argument here...but thanks for a good read while eating my deep dish!

 

[drunkenbeagle]

The only airports that take a significant amount of federal money would be GA reliever airports around major cities, such as Addison, Van Nyes, or Teterbro.

Those airports are important enough to the communities they serve that they aren't going anywhere, AIP money or not...

 

[trafficinsight]

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.



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.



Agreed.



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 would argue that airline passengers contribute that, the airline itself contributes nothing.

How does the GA share compare to revenue?

For what it's worth I feel that fuel taxes are the most fair way to do it, and the collection mechanism already exists.


Sent from 1865 by telegraph....

 

[MikeD]

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.

We need to burn down the village in order to save it.

 

[TWP]

GA has already been reduced to a wealthy mans hobby (it is certainly not affordable on a modest income). User fees will be the final nail in the coffin. Flight schools will go poof. Would this force the airlines to handle the primary training?

 

[GX]

We need to burn down the village in order to save it.

Not sure if serious....

 

[GX]

GA has already been reduced to a wealthy mans hobby (it is certainly not affordable on a modest income). User fees will be the final nail in the coffin. Flight schools will go poof. Would this force the airlines to handle the primary training?

Nah. The Chinese and Koreans will subsidize it. And, unfortunately, own it. Or the fees will just get passed on to them, and they'll take it from somewhere else in all of the debt we owe them.

The small FBO's with CFI's, yeah, gone.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

GA has already been reduced to a wealthy mans hobby (it is certainly not affordable on a modest income)

This may be the public perception, but I don't know that it is really true at all.

When my friends want to hit the keys for a weekend, it costs $700 for 4 of us to rent a 182 or 206. It would cost $2,000 for a 135 charter from the same airport. Or $1600 on AirTran or Silver. We've done all three options. Trust me, everyone prefers the 206.

Glider pilots at my club pay $500/year plus tows. Even flying once a week, that's less than 2 grand a year.

The vast majority of GA pilots I know are not wealthy. Owners of nice GA aircraft are, but that's their choice to buy pricy airplanes. It's their money.

A $100/flight fee means nothing to a GV owner doing 50 cycles a year. It would put most 135 operators out of business.

I don't hate the airlines. I am a big customer, and I couldn't do my job without them being there.

User fees are a horrible idea though. There is a reason GA in the US is the largest market on earth - the fees in Europe have made it something for the rich only. There is no good reason it needs to be that way.

And don't worry ATN - I don't want your job. If high time GA guys wanted your job, they would be at airlines. More of is ain't hurting you.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

The problem with AOPA's proposal is that they want the airlines to incur the same fuel tax increase..

Poor little airlines. I feel so bad for them.

 

[Goonie]

PFJ is worse for the Airlines than GA.

People in glass houses....

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

PFT doesn't even really exist anymore. You're tilting at windmills.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

PFT doesn't even really exist anymore. You're tilting at windmills.

The hell it doesn't. Your new/soon to be parent company...