Do you really think the government is going to reduce the taxes being charged to everyone from fuel if "user fees" are established?
-mini
Save G.A.
- Thread starter Sprint100
- Start date
-mini
Need help pulling up that ladder or do you got it?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The proposals so far would have shifted some of the tax burden to corporate aviation, yes.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Do you think Doctors are "pulling up the ladder" because they use the AMA to systematically limit supply of new doctors to hold their profession up?
I know nothing about the medical profession so I can't comment on that.
I just don't consider 121 flying the only thing that matters in this world.
That's very "pie in the sky".
Why make $2 when you could leave things where they are and add additional fees (fees, taxes...the average American won't realize they're the same thing) and make $3.
If we ever go to "user fees", I don't think you'll see those fuel taxes going away any time soon.
So, you don't think it's fair the way it is now?
Let's see, you burn what (WAG) 2200pph?
I burn 250-400.
I fly lower, slower and use less of the NAS.
Seems like a fair deal to me.
-mini
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
All of the proposals to date have not involved what you suggest. There's a reason that the ATA and RAA have supported this. Their tax burden would be significantly reduced.
The problem of "fairness" isn't with the small GA planes, it's with the business jets. I'd WAG that a Citation X burns about 2,000 PPH. My 717 burns about 4200 PPH. So, my airline is paying a much higher tax than the corporate owner of the Citation X. But guess what? He takes up the same amount of airspace, uses the same facilities, takes up a landing slot at a slot controlled airport, etc... His burden on the NAS is no different than the 717's, but he's paying a much smaller share. All of the user-fee proposals so far have included only business jets, not small GA airplanes, so the Cessna and Piper crowd would not feel the pain. The rich a--hole flying his Citation X from his home in Nantucket to his beach house in Palm Beach would.
...and if you think that's exactly how it would go down, I've got some beautiful beech-front property in Arizona for ya. You should know how this country's government works...follow the money.
Pie in the sky.
-mini
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Exactly, you should follow the money. And where is the money coming from? The ATA and RAA. Their contributions and lobbying are what is pushing the issue. The pandering politicians will bow down to their masters, ie big business. That means any user fees would benefit ATA member airlines.
Mr.Maximus
New Member
I think it's sad that so many believe - and probably correctly so - that because of the financial pressure & costs, becoming a professional pilot is no longer an option. The sentiments expressed so far are pretty difficult to argue against. Why in the world would a reasonable person pay or go into debt 50 - 100k in order to get a 20k job with a future that is a crapshoot at best? Add in being married and especially having children - and the odds become even greater.
Well, I am one of those that left a cozy corporate suit and tie job and decided to pursue my dream of fullfilment as a professional pilot - and I couldn't be happier I did. There are ways to do the basics that allow a smoother transition from suit and tie on the ground to suit and tie in the air. Once I made the decision to pursue aviation, I put together a business plan to make it happen. I kept that corp job while I built time and acquired ratings. I kept that corp job while I did the things necessary to get my flight times up. I kept that corp job until I had the necessary savings to bridge the financial gap from having a real income to the pathetic entry level pay of the flying industry. Was it easy - hell no, but the transition was attainable with good planning. And it was accomplished with being married and having children - two of which popped into the world during the aforementioned process.
My point being that flying professionally can still be very rewarding, both on a personal and professional level. But, with the way things are today - you have to have a survivable plan - and execute it. These kids going out and taking out these monster loans to get a very low paying job are not looking at the impact that will have on the next 3 - 20 years. I believe they refer to the current generation as the "me & now" generation. And it shows. They unfortunatley seem to feel some sort of sense of entitlement - and want to get from A to B in a microscopic amount of time - and damn the consequences of getting to B. There are alot of letters after B - and if you don't factor those in - you are surely going to suffer in a very challenging and often unforgiving industry.
Professional flying is still a very rewarding profession. I earn better than 6 figures, work 15 - 18 days a month, and have a tremendous amount of free and unemcumbered time to dedicate to the family. It's not for everybody - and these days it's not without some risk. I can say it is very fulfilling, I enjoy going to work even after doing it for many years now and I am very happy I took the risk years ago and executed my game plan.
Max
Well, I am one of those that left a cozy corporate suit and tie job and decided to pursue my dream of fullfilment as a professional pilot - and I couldn't be happier I did. There are ways to do the basics that allow a smoother transition from suit and tie on the ground to suit and tie in the air. Once I made the decision to pursue aviation, I put together a business plan to make it happen. I kept that corp job while I built time and acquired ratings. I kept that corp job while I did the things necessary to get my flight times up. I kept that corp job until I had the necessary savings to bridge the financial gap from having a real income to the pathetic entry level pay of the flying industry. Was it easy - hell no, but the transition was attainable with good planning. And it was accomplished with being married and having children - two of which popped into the world during the aforementioned process.
My point being that flying professionally can still be very rewarding, both on a personal and professional level. But, with the way things are today - you have to have a survivable plan - and execute it. These kids going out and taking out these monster loans to get a very low paying job are not looking at the impact that will have on the next 3 - 20 years. I believe they refer to the current generation as the "me & now" generation. And it shows. They unfortunatley seem to feel some sort of sense of entitlement - and want to get from A to B in a microscopic amount of time - and damn the consequences of getting to B. There are alot of letters after B - and if you don't factor those in - you are surely going to suffer in a very challenging and often unforgiving industry.
Professional flying is still a very rewarding profession. I earn better than 6 figures, work 15 - 18 days a month, and have a tremendous amount of free and unemcumbered time to dedicate to the family. It's not for everybody - and these days it's not without some risk. I can say it is very fulfilling, I enjoy going to work even after doing it for many years now and I am very happy I took the risk years ago and executed my game plan.
Max
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
At the same time you are hauling 100 passengers through the sky making much more money for the airline which makes up for the taxes compared to right out of the pocket for the citation X owner. In reality the citation owner is technically paying more money than the airline.
User fees are bad on any level. We have seen in the past that user fees that started with business aircraft do get to general aviation. It isn't a question of if, it is a question of when. General aviation does fuel the airlines with pilots. Unless they want to pay for my flight training, user fees would be detrimental to the airlines in time. The user fees wouldn't make as much money for the FAA as they believe because people in the country will just stop flying. We have seen this in Europe and many other countries. There is a reason why we have around 75% of the worlds aircraft in the US.
Taking the stance of increased bargaining is very selfish. Yes you are looking out for your fellow airline pilots, but you are doing it at the expense of everyone else in aviation. That is including any future pilots who we should be encouraging instead of tearing down just to get an edge.
You do realize that taking the business jets out of the busy airports wont decrease congestion? They only are about 1-4% of the total traffic at these airports. They also spread themselves out much more as they land at many GA fields around the US as well. The only way to decrease congestion is for the airlines to spread their flights out around the US instead of having only 2 or 3 hubs where a majority of flights have to cycle through.
The house bill will work best as GA and business jets will get a fuel tax increase while the airlines will not get an increase in taxes. Once we go to user fees, general aviation in this country will crumble.
Mr.Maximus
New Member
There are two sides to every coin - as I'm quite sure your aware of. Let's say "your" 717 takes off from LGA to PBI to use your example. That Citation X takes off 5 minutes later from TEB to PBI. As your climbing out at "X" FPM to get to your mid thirties cruise altitude, the Citation X is climbing out at "X times 2" FPM for his cruise altitude in the high 30's to the mid 40's. By the time your leveling out and are opening your paper - the X is already higher than you and is now passing you enroute to your mutual destination of PBI. Since your cruising at what - .78 or so, and he's cruising at .83 plus - by the time you finally get 150 miles outside of PBI and have to put the paper down and start your decent - that X has already landed, taxied to the opposite half of the airport, shutdown and "Mr. •" as you call him is on his way to business or pleasure - whichever it may be. The corporate aircraft has flown at an altitude you couldn't obtain, flown right by you because of your slower cruise, and has been on the ground for 10 minutes before your even vectored to final.
Blaming corporate aircraft for the cluster at LGA, ATL, ORD, LAX, or whichever is the flavor of the day is inaccurate. While any aircraft in NAS is taking up space - most corporate aircraft get up, crusie in, and get down faster than an airliner. The real problems are airlines scheduling more flights per hour than an airport can effectively handle. When an airport can handle 100 departures and arrivals/hr - why do airlines have 120 flights scheduled for that same period of time? Just curious.
Keep in mind as well, the "Mr. •" you refer to is the same guy that has a business that employs and pays the salary for those that fly on your airline.
Max
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Just imagine with the VLJs. Owner Pilots now jumping into the flight levels, in their jets, screwing things up even more.
Joy.
Joy.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You don't seem to understand how airlines have to deal with these taxes. The tax is passed on to the customer, but the "market rate" for the fares has a limit. If the airline's yield management department determines that a route can only support a $350 ticket, then that's the maximum that they can charge. If they're passing on taxes to the customer, then that become part of that $350 ticket. If the taxes were reduced, then the market rate for that route hasn't changed, so the airline can continue to charge $350, but the amount that used to go to tax will now go to normal revenue.
As I said, I'm not opposed to GA user fees. I simply pointed out that none of the proposals to date have included them. But you're probably correct that they would eventually spread to actual GA aircraft. I'm ok with that.
If you think that the ATA hasn't taken that into account and considered all of the possible ramifications of user fees, then you don't know the ATA very well. The increased possible costs of training and compensation/benefits would pale in comparison to the massive tax burden that the airlines carry while corporate aviation basically gets a free ride.
I'm not "tearing down" anyone that wants to get into this profession. You've said yourself that the airlines would still have to fill their slots for newhires, but they'd likely have to foot the bill for training. That's a good thing for new air line pilots. These new air line pilots would also have a much better career to look forward to because of the laws of supply and demand within the labor market. As long as there are 10 pilots competing for 1 job, our leverage is extremely limited. A system that limits the supply would weed out the pilots that aren't really committed and don't have the aptitude for this job.
I'm not concerned about the congestion in relation to this issue. I think that should be handled in they way that NY authorities proposed for LGA: limit the size of aircraft at slot-controlled airports to only airplanes that have 100+ seats. On a typical day in LGA, I'm in line behind 10 RJs and just one or two mainline airplanes. RJs are the problem. Replace the RJs with lower frequencies of mainline sized airplanes and many of the congestion issues are gone.
The deregulated system won't allow for this because massive cost saving are achieved through hub operations. A re-regulated system could better support a point-to-point route structure because of subsidies and fare controls, but the current system would never survive.
The airlines need their tax bill cut, not just maintained.
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
The airlines are not the only type of flying business. There are many businesses that would suffer at the cost of user fees. I also said aspiring pilots, not aspiring airline pilots. People that want to fly for a hobby, or even people that want to fly for a career that isn't airlines. Who gets hurt by user fees? Everyone that is not involved with the airlines. You have the fractionals, small part 135 operations, flight schools, flight instructors, freight dogs. You have aircraft manufacturers getting hurt so you have, Cessna, Piper, Robinson, Cirrus, ect. Many many businesses get hurt by user fees. Many people get hurt by user fees. Are user fees worth the loss of jobs in the aviation world just to get an edge in the airlines? By all means, no.
Yes it looks good for an airline pilot to have a pilot shortage, but when it effects more than just airline pilots and aspiring airline pilots it is a big deal. User fees are bad for aviation, especially in the US. If airline pilots don't believe this, then no wonder why everyone looks at them as greedy.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I'm not too concerned about guys that just fly for a hobby. Sorry, but I'm not up for destroying my leverage just so some guy can go fly the pattern in his 152 for a couple of weekends every month. If they can still afford it with user fees, then fine, but I'm not going to worry about them when structuring public policy. Airlines drive the economy, Cessna hobbyists don't.
As for the fractionals, charter companies, check haulers, etc..., they will simply have to pass their increased costs on to the consumer. All of them are in a much better position to do so than the airlines.
As for the fractionals, charter companies, check haulers, etc..., they will simply have to pass their increased costs on to the consumer. All of them are in a much better position to do so than the airlines.
And if that causes them to lose customers?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Again, I doubt it will, because they seem to have much better pricing power than the airlines. The fractionals especially seem to have practically unlimited pricing power. But if a segment of aviation is to lose customers, then it's far better for the overall economy if it's not the airline sector. The airline industry is in a shambles, and that's bad news for the overall economy. If we're going to continue with this failed experiment in deregulation, then the airlines need some other relief.
Isn't this a backwards way of thinking. Well the airlines can't charge more so lets makes others pay?
How bout fixing the price structure of the airlines?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
How do you propose fixing the price structure of the airlines? It's a free market, my friend. Airline yield management departments work their asses off to determine maximum market yields. Under a deregulated system, the price structure won't change. My first choice is to re-regulate the airlines and solve the problem that way. Barring that, we need to take other measures to stabilize an industry that is vital to the economy. Reducing their tax burden is one way to help with that.