AOPA Layoffs - CAPCON Killed
- Thread starter ComplexHiAv8r
- Start date
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That is a COMPLETLEY different argument!
In fact, it is, since an 18-wheeler causes faster wear and tear on the road, leading to higher maintenance costs, which the tolls have to cover. By contrast, a Learjet uses the same amount of airspace as a B747, the same amount of controllers, the same number of runways, etc. In reality, supporting the GA infrastructure at thousands of small airports that the overwhelming majority of Americans will never use in their lifetimes is a significant drain on the Trust Fund. The airlines certainly don't need all of those airports, the control towers there, the navaids for the approaches, etc.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Actually, they can't, which has been the whole problem for the past decade. Demand for airline tickets is incredibly sensitive to pricing.
The money has to come into the Trust Fund, otherwise the infrastructure crumbles. Sorry, George Bush, but tax cuts aren't the answer to everything. The airlines are paying far more than their fair share, and the corporate operators aren't. Time for them to kick in their fair share.
A ludicrous argument, since it takes the same number of controllers, runways, etc. to handle a B757 as it does a Citation. The number of people in an individual aircraft doesn't have anything to do with the overall required infrastructure. That's really only a factor for terminals, which are largely privately funded, or funded by local governments.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
No, it doesn't. The bottleneck in the NAS is runways, not airspace. Most corporate airplanes fly either above or below the FLs that you guys use anyway.
Maintaining the vast majority of those small airports (4000 foot runways in small towns that you've never heard of) costs next to nothing compared to the billions that are spent on the major hubs.
The only airports that receive any significant amount of Federal money are the large GA reliever airports with towers such as VNY, PDK or ADS. And those airports take traffic away from LAX, ATL, and DAL respectively that would be further congesting the runways at those airline hubs.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The bottleneck is a separate issue. We're talking about the resources necessary to maintain the NAS, which is what the Trust Fund is about. Whether you fly at FL510, or FL310, you need the same number of controllers and the same navaids in a Citation that you need in a B747.
I don't think you have any understanding of just how much money the airlines themselves sink into those airports. Of the remainder, much of it is paid for by state and local governments, not the Trust Fund. For example, the 5th runway at Atlanta cost $1.3 billion. Of that, only $0.17 billion was paid for by the feds. That's just 13%. And unlike runways at purely GA airports, that 5th runway actually benefits the average American.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Ok, clarify for me.
Who is your target segment of GA that needs to pay more? Learjets, Schools, or Weekend Wariors?
The only one of those that uses any significant portion of the NAS is business aviation.
Weekend Wariors flying their 172s and homebuilts generally go out of their way to AVIOD controlled airspace. The runway at Henderson Texas doesn't cost the FAA less than the toilet paper in their HQ.
Schools use it some, but I think we can all agree that flight training serves a useful purpose.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Fuller wasn't around long now was he? Two years?
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
The other half of this argument is the spending side. My view is we don't need all the towers and navaids we have. Sure, many places need an operating tower. Quite a few simply don't need to be there anymore. AOPA's strategy should have been "Keep GA taxes low by removing the NAS infrastructure that isn't well utilized."
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
No argument here.
The navaids are going away, slowly but surely. The MX budget has been slashed repeatedly, since GPS is the future (and the FAA doesn't have to pay for it, the USAF does).
90% of towered airports have ATC because they service the airlines. 8% have towers because they are busy GA reliever airports near class B airspace. 2% still have a tower because they had airline service a decade ago, and the local congressman won't let the FAA close it down.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
All of the above, frankly. But no proposal has ever been made to cover all of that. Only turbine aircraft have been targeted by user fee proposals so far.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
So, in your perfect world there would be no GA? Just the airlines?
You can't have GA without access to the NAS, and there is no feasible way to use GA in America with user fees.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's what I said.
And why exactly is that?
Who will collect the landing fee at Podunk county airport? It would be like putting a toll booth on every highway exit in the country. It just isn't feasible. Imposing user fees on all of GA would be almost as difficult as creating a national gun registry, which I'm sure you are aware is next to impossible.
One of the main reasons that the USA has a strong GA presence is because the taxes that pay for the infastructure is transparent, as opposed to Europe where light GA is nonexistent.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I agree that it would be difficult to apply a user fee model in the strictest sense to true GA. An easier way to capture actual GA traffic would be to impose a higher avgas tax. Actual user fees could be charged for use of IFR services and for landing at tower controlled airports. Corporate aviation is easier to capture, because virtually every flight uses IFR services, and simply charging a fee for every flight plan would be pretty easy.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
Ya know...I'm still amazed that it costs me a mere $5 to register an airplane...
Why not just a fee collection when you pick up an IFR clearance, pick up flight following, or use a tower (i.e..a controller strip becomes a receipt)? I'm not in favor of user fees, but that's how I'd implement it if I were told to... If Flight Aware can figure out I used the human interfaces in the NAS, then that could be billed.
Another way to pay would be to pay some sort of fee every annual and reduce the fuel tax. That would get people to fly more or unload the aircraft that are just clogging up our nation's T-hangars.
My point is that it doesn't have to be a simple "user fees vs gas tax" debate... I'm disheartened that's how it's devolved. The NAS has to be paid for...somehow.
Why not just a fee collection when you pick up an IFR clearance, pick up flight following, or use a tower (i.e..a controller strip becomes a receipt)? I'm not in favor of user fees, but that's how I'd implement it if I were told to... If Flight Aware can figure out I used the human interfaces in the NAS, then that could be billed.
Another way to pay would be to pay some sort of fee every annual and reduce the fuel tax. That would get people to fly more or unload the aircraft that are just clogging up our nation's T-hangars.
My point is that it doesn't have to be a simple "user fees vs gas tax" debate... I'm disheartened that's how it's devolved. The NAS has to be paid for...somehow.
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
Exactly why airlines should pay more. They USE the NAS to move more bodies, in other words more fares. They make money using the NAS, and some how they've convinced the flying public they should be the ones paying that fee for the airlines. My boss uses the NAS to go see his mom. In fact he can't charge extra to make money from people he brings with him. He can only recoup a the exact costs. Just like a trucker uses the highway system to make money and my grandpa uses it to go to church. Even though it's the same piece of pavement they pay different amounts to use it. You need the NAS to make money.
I've never said corp jets shouldn't pay, I'm even open to a fuel tax increase. Just not a blanket fee that in our case would increase what we pay now by over 50%. Fuel tax increases are the easiest way to collect more money. It's in place and requires no additional set up. Plus the people who do use corp jets to make money, fractional's, pay an added tax rate.
It's also not about "bush tax cuts". I never brought politics into it. You did for some reason. My internet in Mexico is slow at the moment. So I'll have to pick this up tomorrow.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
No reason to pick anything up tomorrow. It's a pointless discussion. We're paying 98.4% of the Trust Fund, and you somehow think such idiocy is fair. This is like debating with someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. Some things are just insane on their face. This is one of them.
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
Look, I've provided facts, discussion and civilized debate. To "take your ball and go home" while insulting my intelligence is weak at best. The idiocy lies in the fact that the your customer pays your tax bill, and you feel this is lost revenue. You should thank them for providing the conduit (the NAS) that allows for your employment. Nighty night.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Which has been AOPAs position all along. A 2 cent increase on the Avgas or JetA taxes would be barely noticed, and wouldn't change how GA operates. Also, it doesn't cost any more to collect.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
That is how it's done in Europe. The problem is that it will lead to a reduction of safety. "An IFR clearance costs $50, I'll just scud run under these clouds instead."
Nobody seriously thinks that GA shouldn't pay for the NAS, and we already do. However, fuel taxes are the best way to make that happen in this country.