KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
I don't think you have to worry about him doing that anyway. I'd bet he couldn't get a piston single started
AOPA Layoffs - CAPCON Killed
- Thread starter ComplexHiAv8r
- Start date
I don't think you have to worry about him doing that anyway. I'd bet he couldn't get a piston single started
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Not really sure what good the personal attacks will have on getting someone to buy into your philosophy, or improve this community.
If you can't handle a discussion, a difficult one I might add, on policy - perhaps you shouldn't take part?
If you can't handle a discussion, a difficult one I might add, on policy - perhaps you shouldn't take part?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Come on, you've got to be smarter than this if you have a pilot certificate! An airplane that weighs 500k lbs burns a lot more fuel to go 500 miles than a plane that weighs 20k lbs going the same distance. They both use identical resources, yet one is paying 98.4% of the taxes. You know this is absurd!
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
What a childish statement. Just can't handle it when someone has a different opinion than you, can you?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Because it's not really free. It's just free to you. Someone has to pay for it. And guess who that is? My employer. Sorry, but I'm not interested in subsidizing your hobby.
And I have no problem with the airlines shouldering most of the burden. What I have a problem with is the airlines shouldering 98.4% of the burden.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I'm betting I was flying piston singles a decade before you even touched the controls of an airplane, sport.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
And I'd give you 20:1 odds says I've flown a piston single more recently than you have Skipper. That and 2 bucks will get you a coffee at starbucks.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
It's not my hobby, it's my job.
You position that business aviation should pay a larger share of the burden has some merit. Your assertion that weekend warrior hobby flyers use any significant portion of the nations aviation infrastructure is laughable.
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
Ahhhhh but in order for you to answer it this way you have to completely ignore the second half of my post. Once again you fail to even acknowledge the fact that airlines USE the NAS to make money. Your burning more fuel because you're carrying more weight, which means making a profit on the weight you're hauling.
I was also speaking as a rule of thumb for all GA. A 172 could fly for three hours and maybe make it through two sectors in some places. If I'm doing 450kts I talk to a lot more people in the same three hours. Also, even the FAA admits we don't use the same resources the exact same way. Example; we got to SUN a lot, nine times out of ten we cancel out of 18k, so we can get out of the way of people that have to remain on an IFR flight plan to the ground or that can launch into our direction (one way in same way out airport). In my two years at XJT we never canceled airborne. The difference between us is I have a pretty good grasp how both worlds operate (121 vs 91). You've been stuck in your 121 bubble your whole career. Maybe instead of quitting aviation, you come to our side. There are still great jobs that haven't been killed by mismanagement on this side of he field. And not all are fat cat republicans looking to screw who ever gets in there way.
Again, I've never said corp flying shouldn't pay more into the system. My position is there's no reason to change the way the money is collected. You can hike the fuel tax and accomplish the same thing with out having to pay Northrop Grumman to set up an "aviation user fee collection agency". Our FAA trust fund fuel tax bill was slightly over $20,000 dollars last year. If we went to a per leg $100 dollar user fee it could add roughly $12,000 dollars to the same bill. Over 50% increase. Now if they want to get rid of the tax and just add a single leg $100 fee? I'm all for that. Show me a time when a single tax has increased that much (percentage wise) in a single year. Those are real world numbers, not from the NBAA, ALPA or FAA.
Edit to add. If the tax was raised over the course of several years from .281 to .357 it would make up the difference and we wouldn't have those evil "user fees"
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I didn't ignore it. I simply found it irrelevant. What I use the airspace for doesn't matter. The fact that it's being used does. My use creates the same draw on resources that yours does.
And by the way, the rich dudes wouldn't have the business jets if it didn't make business sense to have them. Therefore, your boss is using the NAS to make a profit, also. Just in a different way.
Still not enough, as far as I'm concerned. Again, 1.6% is all you're paying. Pay up!
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yes, I'm really impressed. It must take mad skillz and tons of recent experience to remember how to push the throttle in a bit and turn the key.
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
Choosing to call some thing irrelevant knot make it irrelevant to you. That fact that you use FAA employees to turn a profit is very relevant.
Not enough? Give me a number. Right now it stands for a small-mid size jet costs about $1,700 dollars a month at 300 hours a year. You want that to got to over $2,600 hundred a month and it's not enough? That doesn't even include any other taxes. There must not be a lot of oxygen left in that ALPA bubble. As soon as I don't have to pay a tax to ride on your airplane and the airlines even pay into the system, we'll talk level playing field.
Actually it rarely makes "business sense" to have one. What it does it create, the one thing every one needs more of, time. It's a time machine even compared to airline travel, you're talking hours at time deducted from your trip by flying you're own airplane. Take LA to SUN again for example. Some times you can fly nonstop to LAX but most of the time it's a two leg through SLC. We can easily save four hours maybe more and get the pax closer to their home by using airports that aren't served. That's just one leg. Over the course of the year is a ton of time saved. Again CEO's drive their cars to work to make money, while truckers use the Highway system to make money. It's not about physical damage to the road, it's using some thing the govt provides to all for commercial gain.
Maybe I'm the crazy one who needs meds. I do wish some others would add to the peeing match. ATN and I going round and round isn't really getting any where. Though I'd still by him a beverage if I ever get to an NJC. Some one toss out some other ideas. I'm open minded.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Explain the rationale for that position. If the purpose of the taxes collected is to fund the resources used, and I'm using the same amount of resources whether I'm turning a profit or not, how is it relevant? Your desire for it to be relevant doesn't make it so.
The airlines do pay into the system through passenger taxes. I know you can't wrap your mind around that for some reason, but keep trying.
As for a number, I'd say corporate aviation paying 10% of the Trust Fund revenue would be a good start.
Time is money. So yes, it does make business sense. I'm getting the feeling that you don't have much of a grasp of how business works.
The drinks would be on me. Even though you are the one who needs meds.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
I don't think fuel taxes are the best way. What if there are dramatic changes in fuel efficiency? What happens if battery storage technology explodes and hybrid or electric airplanes become a reality? Governments are already facing this delima for funding infrastructure using auto fuel taxes.
Personally, I think GA should pay based on aircraft registration or annual inspections. Those are independent of fuel use and will encourage a "fly or sell" mentality among owners.
You're doing fine!
U_of_I_Tweak
Well-Known Member
I'll start by saying I'm 100% opposed to user fees. The Obama administration's $100 per segment fee may be reasonable for turbine aircraft, however I see it as the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Plus, creating the infrastructure to oversee the system us a waste.
Where does your 10% number come from? Is GA responsible for 10% of the use of NAS resources? What is the breakdown of operations 121 vs 135 vs 91? If I'm correct, I believe 135 ops pay taxes similar to airline passengers.
The "fly or sell" mentality makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, I have no idea how or why you would tie fees to the trust fund into annual inspections.
As fuel efficiency of aircraft grow, add a proportional amount to the fuel tax. If we get to a point where alternate propulsion systems are prevalent, we can cross that bridge when we get there.
Sent from my DROID RAZR
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
You tie fees to inspections or registrations to pay for the system in a way that focuses on aircraft type vice use. Many states have inspection fees on cars and every state has registration fees. This scheme is good because it encourages owners to actually fly their aircraft. It's bad because it hits the low use or hangar queens harder.
Increasing fuel taxes to account for increased fuel efficiency is problematic because it will tilt the taxation burden to those with older or thirstier aircraft. I don't think driving out older aircraft should be a goal of the government's GA revenue stream. Do you? For example, a Beech-18 and a Diamond Twin Star place the same load on the NAS, but they pay very different amounts of fuel taxes.
I think a fixed-fee scheme is good because the costs of the infrastructure are essentially fixed. The challenge is in determining which types or classes pay which amounts.
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
I'm not goin to wrap my head around money coming out of my pocket and into the FAA trust fund when I buy a ticket. So, when I bought my tv I should've thanked Sony for paying my taxes to the state of California? That was nice of them. When Sony sells a product, they set a price they can make money with regardless of tax structures in various counties. Do they price goods based on locale? Sure, but they're still making money regardless of the tax. If I want a tv and can't afford the tax as well, I don't buy the tv. If a passenger wants a ticket they'll buy it if they can afford it. Could Sony sell their product for more money with out taxes? Maybe, maybe not but with taxes they still make money. If the airlines can't make money on fares that include tax or not, they should really rethink the business model.Explain the rationale for that position. If the purpose of the taxes collected is to fund the resources used, and I'm using the same amount of resources whether I'm turning a profit or not, how is it relevant? Your desire for it to be relevant doesn't make it so.
The airlines do pay into the system through passenger taxes. I know you can't wrap your mind around that for some reason, but keep trying.
As for a number, I'd say corporate aviation paying 10% of the Trust Fund revenue would be a good start.
Time is money. So yes, it does make business sense. I'm getting the feeling that you don't have much of a grasp of how business works.
The drinks would be on me. Even though you are the one who needs meds.
What I meant by airlines use the NAS (FAA employees) to make money. I'm saying, if the FAA disappeared tomorrow the airlines couldn't make money. My boss on the other hand would have no trouble making money. They've been in business since 1919 with or with out the FAA. So when you use government agencies to provide resources as the backbone of the safety of your company, expect to responsible for more costs. Costs that are paid for by your customers. Just like the 9/11 security fee. The airlines convinced the people they should be paying for the airlines security department as well. People on here like to say flying is not a "right", take a car. Well when your customers are subsidizing a portion of your operation they have a little say in things if you ask me. If my boss wants to be safe on his airplane, he either trusts the pilots know what's on the airplane of hires a private firm to do it.
Here's another example I found that further illustrates my point.
"The Carnival Corporation wouldn’t have much of a business without help from various branches of the government. The United States Coast Guard keeps the seas safe for Carnival’s cruise ships. Customs officers make it possible for Carnival cruises to travel to other countries. State and local governments have built roads and bridges leading up to the ports where Carnival’s ships dock."
From this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html?_r=0
Every thing I've talked about is why I believe airlines should've never been de-regulated in the first place. To much commingling of private corporation and government.
Oh, yeah time is money, you're right. Unless you're retired, then it's just time and there are a lot of those types flying around too.
Is any of this making sense to any one else? @SteveC? Or am I way off base?
block30
Well-Known Member
Yes, this is a big problem with taxes in general. Where the money gets distributed can be quite different from where the money was originally intended to go, or where a taxpayer thinks their money is going.
block30
Well-Known Member
Reminds me of the SNL skit of Christopher Walken, playing Bruce Dickinson:
Bruce Dickinson: "Before we're done here.. y'all be wearing gold-plated diapers."
Alan: [ confused ] "What does that mean?"
Bruce Dickinson: "Never question Bruce Dickinson! Roll it!"
For your listening pleasure-
http://www.hark.com/clips/ldftxtcgzh-gold-plated-diapers
Last edited:
