So why the contradiction in your statements? First, you said you'd leave the little guys in the Cessna alone, then you stated if they fall by the wayside, than so be it, then you're saying you want to be one of them. Which one is it?
$100 user fee
- Thread starter JayAre
- Start date
So why the contradiction in your statements? First, you said you'd leave the little guys in the Cessna alone, then you stated if they fall by the wayside, than so be it, then you're saying you want to be one of them. Which one is it?
The search results are linked. Are you implying that you don't stand by your statements from 08?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Twisting your words? I posted them EXACTLY as you posted them. If you follow the timeline, it's how they align. Blame bad politics if you like. Blame anything else you wish. I'm looking at what you said, and quoting you directly. No cut and paste. You said it. The links are posted.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
GX, you'd be better served to read the recent threads. Although my position on most of the user fees issue has remained unchanged, there are some small changed since the old 2008 thread you're reading. The more recent threads more accurately reflect my current beliefs on user fees, which include charging fees to GA, even though no current (or past) proposal has ever included it.
Houston
Well-Known Member
The other aspect of the user fee that is so ludicrous is that it creates yet another bureaucracy to collect a tax (or a fee if you're an Obama follower). It's the same logic as changing a road into a toll road so as not to raise a gasoline tax. The effective tax just went up and the money wasted to collect the tax just went up even more.
You made me dig. So I did. I knew that something didn't add up, and I see why. It's not one thread, it's MULTIPLE threads. I don't care about proposals. I care about your opinion. Your position. That's what was asked, and that's what was discovered. Thank you for letting me dig. It's good to know that you are in favor of making the cost of flying so cost prohibitive that it is impossible to operate to ensure that you have a job. Way to pay it forward, homie.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
I had a whole big angry post but I really don't think you're a bad guy, just flat out completely wrong for incredibly selfish reasons in this particular case. Instead I think I'll ask two questions:
1.) If you didn't want to argue this again, why did you start the argument in the first place?
2.) Why do people keep saying "Words on the internet wont change anyone's position?"
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The feeling is mutual.
I didn't. I called AOPA useless. Didn't even mention user fees. Derg went that route.
Well, will they?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That's.... real clever, sir.... Except for this little quote from above:
You sure you're not up for election?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You either have a reading comprehension problem, or you're intentionally twisting my words. My personal position has absolutely nothing to do with what has actually been proposed. No one in government has EVER proposed user fees for GA aircraft. EVER. My personal opinion is just that: my opinion. That boob Fuller who is begging for more money from guys flying Cessnas is intentionally misleading them into believing that there is a proposal to charge them user fees. It's an outright lie, and he knows it. But he doesn't care, because he'll use all of the revenue he collects from his lie to protect himself and his rich buddies from having to pay user fees, because they're the only ones actually in danger of paying them.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
The feeling is mutual.
I didn't. I called AOPA useless. Didn't even mention user fees. Derg went that route.
Well, will they?
I've gained new beliefs and even changed my beliefs on many occasions based on words on the internet. I'm willing to look at other viewpoints, and on the internet there are many.
I would say that wandering into a thread about user fees and saying "AOPA SUX," is probably going to start a fight and that fight is probably going to be centered on the original thread topic, wouldn't you?
AOPA has done many things over many years to ensure that aviation is accessible to people, from fighting to make sure GA aircraft were allowed into all classes of airspace, to getting GA back in the air as quickly as possible after 9/11 when the government really couldn't have cared less, and many things in between. They are one of the few groups to do so, and these things don't just protect Joe the weekend warrior, they're good for businesses serving GA as well. For my dues money I think I get a lot.
I also believe that:
a.) The trust fund is not as broke as the user fee advocates would have you believe.
b.) A Healthy GA system is good for the business of the country.
c.) User fees will only grow and GA will only die (It is already, unfortunately).
d.) The airlines are mainly responsible for the perceived "crowding."
e.) GA pays an equitable share.
f.) User fees are being proposed so that the trust fund can be raided.
Comprehend that. That's what I asked for. And got it. Thank you for that.
I understand that you will gladly cut my legs out from underneath me to ensure that you have a job tomorrow. And you are, or were, a union leader? Did I get that right?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Fair enough. And now that you mention it, I did actually change some of my interpretations of Bible scripture based upon an article someone posted here a few days ago, so you have a valid point. On this issue, though, I just don't see it happening. We have diametrically opposed interests. Your goals are not my goals. So the idea that we're going to change each other's minds is not realistic.
Ok, ok. Maybe you're right. Maybe I am "twisting your words and taking them out of context." So we'll try again.
I posted that you said
on April 12,2008
THEN....
I was reading the Gulfstream thread. You know the one where you debated about paying for your right seat, or paying for training...
This one
Dated Dec 19, 2011, in which you said
In 2008, you stated that you're in favor of making it so cost prohibitive to get into aviation, that it wouldn't be worth it for new pilots to get into the industry.
In 2011, you're now in favor of new pilots joining the ranks and breaking into the industry? Why the sudden change in heart?
Anything out of context, here?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yes. But I think you know that. If you had read the user fees threads in their entirety, you would have seen that my primary motivation for user fees is always about increasing GA's contribution to the Trust Fund and ending the unfair burden that the airlines are forced to bear, reducing their margins. That's the main goal. Reducing the pool of available pilots might be a side effect that would be beneficial to increase bargaining leverage, but it isn't the primary goal. In the same way, I favored the new Flight Time/Duty Time regulations. That regulation did eventually get finalized, and it goes into effect next year. The primary goal is to increase safety. But a side effect will be a necessary increase in pilot staffing at many carriers, driving up demand. Not the primary goal, but it is a nice benefit for someone worried about bargaining.
As far as new pilots breaking into the industry, nowhere in that second quote do you see me talking about how I want it to be easy for new pilots to break into the industry. All I said was that pilots who are breaking into the industry shouldn't be scared away from a legitimate airline by people with outdated prejudices. Your attempts to connect these two disparate ideas are flimsy at best. It's clear that you don't have a firm grasp of the issues, so you're grasping at straws instead and trying to twist words.
Yeah, BUT.
If you add in the medical, license and other departments like crash investigation, scheduling, legislative affairs, it's a lot more coverage than one would realize.
ALPA is a union. AOPA is a PAC. ALPA has a PAC and does a lot more than a PAC does.
