If you oppose user fees...

[flyover]

Why should society as a whole bear the burden of a select few?

In the past attempts have been made to target the wealthy with taxes under the theory it only effected "a select few". Examples include the Nixon administration adding special taxes to marine and av gas. And more recently the attempt to put a special tax on luxury yachts back in the 90s.

The great surprise was that the taxes resulted in a huge impact on ordinary people, throwing thousands out of work almost over night.

I doubt that the true economic benefits of airports and general aviation will be accounted for when they go after "the select few".

 

[E_Dawg]

So are you also against toll roads?

 

[Minnesota_Flyer]

So are you also against toll roads?

Toll roads are of the devil.

 

[flyhigh]

frog: PERFECT

:yeahthat:

just to add onto what FF said...suppose a person is single and moves to a new town. Even though that person has no kids, taxes towards the local school system are STILL being paid (and probably increasing every year)

 

[MSUDAWG]

:yeahthat:

just to add onto what FF said...suppose a person is single and moves to a new town. Even though that person has no kids, taxes towards the local school system are STILL being paid (and probably increasing every year)

EXACTLY! I went to a private high school but did my parents get a tax break for me not utilizing the public school system? NAY NAY
Now I know it was their choice to send me to a priv college prep school, but its also someones choice to not fly and utilize their tax dollars at the small devil GA airports that "steal" tax money......

 

[falconvalley]

:yeahthat:

just to add onto what FF said...suppose a person is single and moves to a new town. Even though that person has no kids, taxes towards the local school system are STILL being paid (and probably increasing every year)

Imagine how many kids wouldn't go to school because their parents couldn't afford it if only those who went, paid. I went to school with some friends who's parents could barely afford the yearly fees.

 

[flyover]

So are you also against toll roads?

Not at all. And in fact I can see some change in the way the aviation system is funded if it is minimal enough to have a very small effect. After all, this isn't smoking where we're putting sin taxes on (supposedly) to discourage the activity. But I've got a feeling that once these user fees get started they will be an easy go-to place for more revenue until they do have a noticeable negative impact on general aviation.

I know some pilots that think it would have a positive effect on airlines if GA was taxed out of existence. One of them said as much to me as we were loading passengers across from the Gulfstream plant at SAV. The idea that our large passenger load had anything to do with the local economy of SAV apparently didn't occur to him.

So I'd say better to fight them now.

 

[tprops4me]

I am not against the idea of paying for something if I use it, but if the FAA gets its way, it has crossed into the realm of the insane. If you are telling me that I have contribute an equal share of the opperating costs for center to handle class A traffic, you are nuts. If you are telling me that I have to pay my equal share of the bill to improve the atc system at KORD, don't waste your time. Last time I could'nt even enter thier airspace because it was full of IFR airline traffic. They don't want me there so they can foot thier own bill. Now, if you tell me that there is a fuel tax that takes the money, and puts it into an account that is used for GA airport improvements, and our part-time ATC usage, I have no problem with that. However, there is no reason for a .70 cent per gallon tax. The more I fly, the more I pay to use the system. That is what is fair. And for the record I think toll roads are sh*&.

 

[SmitteyB]

I agree that private jet users should be taxed the same as the airlines. However I believe anything under 12.5 should keep the current tax rates.

 

[Tiger815]

I'm opposed to user-fees because they'd pretty much kill my flying hobby, but I must admit, they only seem fair. I know I stand a chance of being hung for suggesting that around here, but I think if I wasn't a pilot, I'd be all for those who use the system having to pay for it.

It sorta reminds me of the situation we have in Florida with home owner's insurance. People are b1tching up a storm about home owner's insurance rates skyrocketing - but what people don't want to admit to is the fact that we live on the biggest target on teh continent, and home values here have increased dramatically over the past three years. State legislators here want insurance companies to spread the costs out across all of their customers - but is that fair? Should some farmer in Kansas have to pay a higher insurance premium because some yuppy decided to build a 10-million dollar stucco home on the water in Florida?

Sure, the general public benefits somewhat from GA, but like I said, if I weren't a pilot, I'd be totally for user fees. Don't hate me - I still pay my AOPA dues and will oppose this, but I was wondering if anyone looks at it the same way I do.

Murdoughnut,

The problem with "fair" is that no one in the FAA can tell you what the services actually cost, so they can't tell you what a "fair" price would be. The FAA estimate simply allocates what it SPENDS over the total number of flights and saying GA's gas tax doesn't cover their share of the flights.
There are many problems inherent in this approach.

First, There is no incentive for the FAA to save or be efficient, and because it's govermenment service you can't necessicarily take the actions you need to to manage costs like in private industry.

Second, even if GA were banned from the skies, the amount of saving that would accure to the FAA would be minimal, becasue the system is designed for and mainly BY the airlines.

I'm a GA pilot, and an FAA contractor and can tell you that the level of waste within the FAA would stagger your imagination. There is nothing "fair" about killing GA to benefit the airlines.

 

[NJA_Capt]

I agree that private jet users should be taxed the same as the airlines.

SmittyB et al:

Gen Av and corporate aircraft are paying their fair share NOW. Do not be fooled by this recent propaganda. The aviation trust fund was set up to operate and update the ATC system, unfortunately the government has seen fit to realign its uses and has been using the Fund monies in other places rather than its original intent. Corporate jets are paying near double the price for fuel as the airlines, landing fees, ramp fees, and facility fees. Sure they are paid to the FBO, but who do you think the FBO pays rent to? In many cases, we pay the airport authority directly. Think for a minute how much property tax is paid on a $20M jet.

Airlines claim corp jets are getting a "free ride." If they want to look at a free ride, they should look in the mirror. The Feds subsidize the airlines yearly to operate into unprofitable markets and after 9/11 granted the airlines over $50 billion in bailouts. Would the government subsidize a local charter company to operate a GV when they have a King Air budget? No. Would they offer to "bailout" a corp department that mismanaged its own money? Of course not.

The trust fund was supposed to pay 21% of the FAAs budget. In 2005, it paid 63% of the FAAs budget! Yes the airlines pay the most for using the ATC system and they should. Airlines account for 68% of the demand on the system.

Now, to the Pro-User fee moles on the site:
Fine, treat corporate jets the same. Since as you say "corporate aircraft put the same burden on ATC as an airliner with 135 people," then corp aircraft should be given equal rights on departure and landing sequencing. So no more of this "airliners come first" thinking. Then, since we are paying the same user tax to use a facility we should have equal claim to terminal ramps and jetways. Better clear off some gates at SFO, LGA, BWI, MIA, ATL, DEN, MDW, DFW, IAD, IAH, SEA, LAX, PIT and PHL. If we have to pay to have them built we should have the same access as the airlines.

 

[txrevolution]

SmittyB et al:

Gen Av and corporate aircraft are paying their fair share NOW. Do not be fooled by this recent propaganda. The aviation trust fund was set up to operate and update the ATC system, unfortunately the government has seen fit to realign its uses and has been using the Fund monies in other places rather than its original intent. Corporate jets are paying near double the price for fuel as the airlines, landing fees, ramp fees, and facility fees. Sure they are paid to the FBO, but who do you think the FBO pays rent to? In many cases, we pay the airport authority directly. Think for a minute how much property tax is paid on a $20M jet.

Airlines claim corp jets are getting a "free ride." If they want to look at a free ride, they should look in the mirror. The Feds subsidize the airlines yearly to operate into unprofitable markets and after 9/11 granted the airlines over $50 billion in bailouts. Would the government subsidize a local charter company to operate a GV when they have a King Air budget? No. Would they offer to "bailout" a corp department that mismanaged its own money? Of course not.

The trust fund was supposed to pay 21% of the FAAs budget. In 2005, it paid 63% of the FAAs budget! Yes the airlines pay the most for using the ATC system and they should. Airlines account for 68% of the demand on the system.

Now, to the Pro-User fee moles on the site:
Fine, treat corporate jets the same. Since as you say "corporate aircraft put the same burden on ATC as an airliner with 135 people," then corp aircraft should be given equal rights on departure and landing sequencing. So no more of this "airliners come first" thinking. Then, since we are paying the same user tax to use a facility we should have equal claim to terminal ramps and jetways. Better clear off some gates at SFO, LGA, BWI, MIA, ATL, DEN, MDW, DFW, IAD, IAH, SEA, LAX, PIT and PHL. If we have to pay to have them built we should have the same access as the airlines.

Well said.:yeahthat:

 

[MarkE]

SmittyB et al:

Gen Av and corporate aircraft are paying their fair share NOW. Do not be fooled by this recent propaganda. The aviation trust fund was set up to operate and update the ATC system, unfortunately the government has seen fit to realign its uses and has been using the Fund monies in other places rather than its original intent. Corporate jets are paying near double the price for fuel as the airlines, landing fees, ramp fees, and facility fees. Sure they are paid to the FBO, but who do you think the FBO pays rent to? In many cases, we pay the airport authority directly. Think for a minute how much property tax is paid on a $20M jet.

Airlines claim corp jets are getting a "free ride." If they want to look at a free ride, they should look in the mirror. The Feds subsidize the airlines yearly to operate into unprofitable markets and after 9/11 granted the airlines over $50 billion in bailouts. Would the government subsidize a local charter company to operate a GV when they have a King Air budget? No. Would they offer to "bailout" a corp department that mismanaged its own money? Of course not.

The trust fund was supposed to pay 21% of the FAAs budget. In 2005, it paid 63% of the FAAs budget! Yes the airlines pay the most for using the ATC system and they should. Airlines account for 68% of the demand on the system.

Now, to the Pro-User fee moles on the site:
Fine, treat corporate jets the same. Since as you say "corporate aircraft put the same burden on ATC as an airliner with 135 people," then corp aircraft should be given equal rights on departure and landing sequencing. So no more of this "airliners come first" thinking. Then, since we are paying the same user tax to use a facility we should have equal claim to terminal ramps and jetways. Better clear off some gates at SFO, LGA, BWI, MIA, ATL, DEN, MDW, DFW, IAD, IAH, SEA, LAX, PIT and PHL. If we have to pay to have them built we should have the same access as the airlines.

Wow, that was a great post.

 

[Poopsmith]

Wow, that was a great post.

Double that!

 

[wrxpilot]

Now, to the Pro-User fee moles on the site:
Fine, treat corporate jets the same. Since as you say "corporate aircraft put the same burden on ATC as an airliner with 135 people," then corp aircraft should be given equal rights on departure and landing sequencing. So no more of this "airliners come first" thinking. Then, since we are paying the same user tax to use a facility we should have equal claim to terminal ramps and jetways. Better clear off some gates at SFO, LGA, BWI, MIA, ATL, DEN, MDW, DFW, IAD, IAH, SEA, LAX, PIT and PHL. If we have to pay to have them built we should have the same access as the airlines.

F****n' A!

 

[Murdoughnut]

Murdoughnut,

The problem with "fair" is that no one in the FAA can tell you what the services actually cost, so they can't tell you what a "fair" price would be. The FAA estimate simply allocates what it SPENDS over the total number of flights and saying GA's gas tax doesn't cover their share of the flights.
There are many problems inherent in this approach.

First, There is no incentive for the FAA to save or be efficient, and because it's govermenment service you can't necessicarily take the actions you need to to manage costs like in private industry.

Second, even if GA were banned from the skies, the amount of saving that would accure to the FAA would be minimal, becasue the system is designed for and mainly BY the airlines.

I'm a GA pilot, and an FAA contractor and can tell you that the level of waste within the FAA would stagger your imagination. There is nothing "fair" about killing GA to benefit the airlines.

You make excellent points - I'm certainly not for user fees, I was just looking for a way to explain my case to those who don't fly - this is a good argument, though.

 

[cezzna]

What's right and rational doesn't matter. It's just a matter of time before someone sends this lamb to slaughter. On the quick face of it, it's an easy feelgood slamdunk for any politician, republican or democrat. With america's shallow as a puddle depth of understanding of any issues, this things a done deal already. It will be presented as an easy way to ##### the rich man with a couple of ads. We as americans can't keep our eye on the ball for more than about 30 seconds.

Suck it up and make the best of it. This is politics in america. It's what sounds good and what John Q voter can understand in 30 second commercials, not what is real or works.

 

[surreal1221]

What's right and rational doesn't matter. It's just a matter of time before someone sends this lamb to slaughter. On the quick face of it, it's an easy feelgood slamdunk for any politician, republican or democrat. With america's shallow as a puddle depth of understanding of any issues, this things a done deal already. It will be presented as an easy way to ##### the rich man with a couple of ads. We as americans can't keep our eye on the ball for more than about 30 seconds.

Suck it up and make the best of it. This is politics in america. It's what sounds good and what John Q voter can understand in 30 second commercials, not what is real or works.

Holy chit! Are you REALLY from the midwest!?!?!

 

[KW]

Airports (and GA as a whole) are just like roads. Not everyone is a direct user, but we all benefit indirectly. Interstate commerce as we know it wouldn't exist if the Federal Gov didn't tax us all to pay for a lot of roads that many of us as individuals will never drive on. But the economic benefits that we all reap more then make up for it.

I once read an article written by an Army officer talking about time spent in Bosnia. He said it was awful how many people would get run over at night because their were no street lights. The locals wouldn't support any taxation to fun street lights, because no one wanted to have to pay for their neighbors lights - why should they have to?

In the case of airline passengers, many of the pilots and mechanics flying and servicing their aircraft (and likely an even larger percentage in the near future) wouldn't be in the industry if it weren't for GA. How much more is an airline ticket going to cost when Delta or United have to start training their own pilots and mechanics from the ground up because no one else can make money at it? Probably a lot more then the $40 I spent on taxes for the round trip I took PDX-MIA last December.

 

[tonyw]

The question is whether or not you think that air traffic control is a critical government function that should be paid for with taxes or not.

If you do, then you should be for leaving the current system alone.

If you don't, then you should be for user fees.

Me? I personally think there's an inherent government interest in keeping large, fast pieces of metal from hitting things and killing people, so I say keep the taxes.