$100 user fee

Derg, what you call "pulling up the rope," I call preservation of my livelihood. But to each his own.
And how exactly does GA kill your livelihood? I know you've probably answered this prior, but not sure how GA is killing your work. Please don't use the old "it's not fair, they don't pay their fare share". That is just a juvenile argument, and you know that is not what is killing the airlines.

Just curious...
 
How is GA killing your livelihood? That is the question. Where does GA step on the poor airlines, with their multi, multi-billion $$ revenue? Tax revenue not enough for you? I don't know the numbers, but as an Obama supporter, you should be for the big guys helping the little guys out, I would think...just saying. Not all of GA is Warren Buffett types, you know...
 
Whether you like the argument or not, it's a true one: they don't pay their fair share.

Being a GA instructor / pilot, how am I not "paying my fair share?" I barely get paid anything as it is.

I volunteer my time towing gliders - which is about the only way soaring stays affordable for average people. $100/flight would make that impossible. Almost all new gliders will eventually have turbojets and in theory have a $100/flight tax under this proposal. And the airports I fly out of LOVE when turbojets stop in - they buy a lot of gas, and the gas sales are way we pay for operation of the airports. (City would build condos there in a minute without the cut they get from fuel sales).

The local GA airport probably the largest source of employment where I live. (rampers, folks in the restaurant, the Pilotmall folks, the Air Ambulance, news helos... long list).

Charging fees based on the type of propulsion seems silly to me. I'm probably a bigger user of ATC services than most biz jets (I go a lot slower, so they need to deal with me longer). And it would just be a matter of time before the tax would apply to everyone.
 
So is this for real? Or is AOPA baiting me to sign up?

The real answer is, not yet.

The DOT has been trying to enact user fees for quite some time now. At the moment they claim they will only target buisness jets and maybe turboprops. AOPA, EAA, and NBAA have been fighting this for quite some time now.

AOPA sees this as the first step toward a European style user fee system that charges C-150s 25$ per touch and go. I'm not sure that will ever happen, but I tend to think that the threat is real.
 
I would love to see a "taxes paid per flight hour" statistical average of Airline, corporate, pt 135 and small GA on a chart. Either way the general consensus seems to be that the airlines pay more taxes. Well they fly more/use the system more then any other operation so this seems perfectly justified. Does the system in place now pose an un justified burden on any single sector of the aviation industry? I think most people would agree that it doesn't. The fuel tax seems easy for the FAA to monitor and administer. The new tax system would create a terrible bureaucratic burden which would probably cost more then it collects in income.
 
I don't get this whole "They don't pay their fare share" BS...I've flown Part 121 since 2007, and during my furlough I flew Part 91 corporate, so I've seen both sides of the coin.

Part 121, at Horizon we fly into a good number of airports where GA is the dominant traffic (Such as STS, EAT, PUW, LWS)...and they don't get in our way. Occasionally we run into situations where we have to wait for someone to close an IFR plan to start down on the approach, but I can't honestly remember the last time that happened. Fact of the matter is, it's pretty rare that I (as an airline pilot) encounter GA aircraft. The whole "they're using our airspace, causing delays, etc" is BS.

As a GA aircraft "owner" (the 310) and a corporate pilot, I can tell you we paid our share of taxes. Have you taken the time to see how much gas is for GA aircraft? Have you taken the time to see the breakdown of taxes that are on each gallon of 100LL? If you fly your GA aircraft into an airport that is predominately Part 121, guess what...you pay landing fees, ramp fees and get raped on fuel cost...but it's a cost of doing business should you choose to fly in there. Currently 100LL is taxed at 19.4 cents/gal.
 
Derg, what you call "pulling up the rope," I call preservation of my livelihood. But to each his own.

I'd like to preserve my livelihood as much as anyone else does, if not more. Skosh career opportunities in the real world for a guy with an Air Science degree from the Prescott School for Wayward Boys.

But General Aviation, considering the power structure wants to move towards a 'pay to play' model (toll roads, fire protection fees, private security. higher DMV fees so it'll operate "like a business" *giggle* and so on), they're going to end up paying more. I think it's a foregone conclusion. But AOPA is helping it's members with how much.

Somewhat like the NRA. Members are delirious if they believe we will have more lenient/no gun control in America in the next 50 years. The NRA, for better or worse, is acting to make sure they're not too harsh from their perspective.
 
When your flight director drops from the top of the ADI with marionette strings we'll talk! ;)

I'm not going to sleep right for days after that one. Hey you flying this weekend?
 
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.
 
I'm not going to sleep right for days after that one. Hey you flying this weekend?

Nope just got back from MEX yesterday. Enjoying some summer weekends off this month. They flew my tail off last month...3 Europe trips, 1 GEO trip, and 2 round trip transcons.
 
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.

So when people say something you don't like, you take your ball and go home. Nicely played
 
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.

To be fair, you brought up GA not paying their fair share.

We could just get rid of GA entirely. Many places on earth where it effectively doesn't exist.

I personally think airline's don't pay their fair share by allowing jumpseaters to not pay taxes at all (they have an exemption for this)
 
I'm an AOPA member, as well as being pro-GA. I don't agree with the argument that GA in any way detracts from any other sector of aviation, and do want to see GA continue to thrive.
 
I'm an AOPA member, as well as being pro-GA. I don't agree with the argument that GA in any way detracts from any other sector of aviation, and do want to see GA continue to thrive.

If only the military would get rid of those pesky MOAs, and restricted areas, the airlines could save a lot of fuel.
 
And when was the last time you flew a general aviation airplane?
That right there is the same as saying, "Screw everyone else, I have mine." Unless youare ex-military, then the system you're advocating would have hurt your chances. Just saying. I respect most of your posts on here, so we'll agree to disagree I guess.
 
Back
Top