Better start your flight training soon...

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Talk about congestion eh?

What congestion? TEB, CDW, MMU and LDJ don't have congestion problems. Nor does DET or YIP.

Neither does BKL or HOU

 

[minitour]

No, you didn't.

Maybe you'd like my credit card statement?

I'd ask you to pay the bill too, but I don't carry credit cards anymore.

-mini

 

[jtrain609]

That gets back to the whole staffing/planning properly for a business. Make the decision based on what you can carry. If you can fill a dash, put 'em on a dash. I don't really care if it's a 737 or a 402 going from PIT-LBE, but if you're sending 2 RJs within 10 minutes of each other, there's a problem.

-mini

The company I worked at never SCHEDULED two RJ's going somewhere within 10 minutes of each other. That would be a huge loss of revenue, and one 737 would end up going on that route.

 

[MQAAord]

I find that the -145 is incredibly comfortable. I can stand up in the aisle (anybody up to 6'0" can), and the seats on ExpressJet planes fit me pretty well! I'd much rather be in an ERJ for 4 hours than a 737, personally.

CRJ on the other hand? No thanks. Who in the world designed those seats?

Uh, no thanks.

I like having enough room move around. A galley that is useful sized, AND being able to bring my rollerbag on.

I'm 5'2", and I find the EMB-135/140/145 series to be cramped and claustrophobic.

 

[minitour]

Uh, no thanks.

I like having enough room move around. A galley that is useful sized, AND being able to bring my rollerbag on.

I'm 5'2", and I find the EMB-135/140/145 series to be cramped and claustrophobic.

I'm 5'10". I'll take riding in a boeing (or even an air bus) any day over an RJ. Unfortunately..........I don't get to make that choice anymore.

-mini

 

[JoelT]

Seat 1A in an E145/135 is the MOST comfortable coach seat in the country, hands down. Seat 12A is the next. I would much rather sit in one of those on a twelve hour flight to TLV than in the back of my 767-300ER.

Oh yeah, one more thing, pro user-fee here. I am not going to worry about arguing it as it would not accomplish anything.

 

[killbilly]

You guys are getting caught up in the idea that Cessna 172's need to get caught up in this, and if you were smart you'd start lobbying folks like the AOPA to cut loose anybody over 5,000 lbs. and start focusing on the airplanes you're thinking about. Whether you like it or not, GA includes everything from LSA's to Boeing BBJ's. If it's operated Part 91, then it's going to fall under this umberlla that is considered general aviation.

5,000 lbs. would probably be a pretty good point. That's everything up through about a Beech Baron (5,100 lbs. gross), and I'll contend if you can afford a Baron, you can probably afford some user fee's. I'd contend that most planes over about 5,000 lbs. are being used by either INCREDIBLY wealthy Americans as toys (which is where the outrage will be), or business aviation (who can take the hit for all I care), where planes under that weight are probably either trainers or used in such a limited role in the NAS that they're largely not in the way or using resources.

Try to protect it all if you want, but you won't be able to. If I were you guys, I'd be lobbying AOPA incredibly hard to start protecting smaller GA planes instead of trying to be so inclusive of BBJ's.

I'm a little late to this thread because I didn't want to post in it last night while drunk. I'm sober this morning.

Jtrain's argument is the most pragmatic. I'm not thrilled with the idea of user fees, however, if they're coming, I think doing it proportionally is fair. I also think, that if I was a user of the system, I would be okay with the fee-based approach as long as I was getting a value for my money. I don't mind paying to play, I guess, if I get to reap benefit.

This should not be an airline pilot vs GA pilot issue at all. The fact is most of these GA pilots that Velo pictures going to get $100 hamburgers are current or retired airline pilots. I would bet the farm that there are more airline pilots against GA user tax than there are for it.

A reasonable position - and I'll go you one better.

A lot of Part 91 traffic is business-related in the eyes of the GA pilot - the classic example being an exec or sales rep who covers a lot of ground with his airplane and uses it as a business tool. I expect that the additional operating costs in a user-fee system would likely be deducted against whatever taxes were being paid on that business, in which case it could likely be a net-net, and in some cases, a WIN in certain tax years where you need some additional deductions.

All of my flying is VFR, although I will be pursuing an IR ticket eventually. If I want it bad enough, then I'll deal with whatever reality exists at the time. It's silly to bring any sense of entitlement to bear on any side of this argument - this is a business and economic fight, and whomever wins, THAT'S what we'll have to deal with. Arguing with each other is irrelevant.

 

[Maurus]

While your point is valid, GA proponents don't command enough votes to influence the local dogcatcher election. What makes you think ANY legislator at ANY level gives a rat's ass about GA pilots unless he is one himself. And who believes even he would vote against user fees if the general public was in favor of them?

This statement alone shows how little you know about GA. Do you really think GA is filled with only pilots? Sure there may only be 500,000 votes from GA pilots, but there is a branching effect.

For every 1 pilot there would at least be 5 more people minimum involved with that pilot's activities in GA. FBO's, aircraft manufacturers, flight schools, insurance companies, medical outfits, Part 135 operations, flight departments, fractionals ect. There are more than just pilots involved with GA. Although a senator may not be impacted from a lack of votes, a congressman in the house can definately get hit hard when their contingency has an aviation rich electorate.

Everyone remember Velo wont care about this stuff as he really doesn't know what GA is like. He has one view form the seat of a 737. His training was paid for by the taxpayers and his type by his employers. He has no idea what a fee would induce in the industry.

 

[meritflyer]

GA is dying in the United States anyway unfortunetly.

You sir, are unbelievable.

You better pray to God you don't get furloughed and have to go back to instructing only to find GA dead and you out of a job, Mr. ALPA.

And it's spelled unfortunately not unfortunetly.

 

[BajtheJino]

I like to take it deep and hard with no lube.

You sir, are a bigot.

 

[Velocipede]

If you guys are the voices that are trying to fight this in the real world then general aviation is screwed.

Amen, train, amen.

Ya'll are using horrible emotional arguments based on your direct involvement with aviation, not pragmatic and logical reasoning that would explain to somebody in charge that GA airplanes use a VERY small part of the NAS, and while some might call it "free riding," the number of GA planes under 5,000 lbs. that are actually clogging things up and/or using resources more than what they're paying in to the system is akin to blaming road bikers in Park City for road damage.

Exactly. Its all emotion generated by fear that NBAA is whipping up in GA pilots. Or should they be rightly be called GA "puppets".

You guys are getting caught up in the idea that Cessna 172's need to get caught up in this, and if you were smart you'd start lobbying folks like the AOPA to cut loose anybody over 5,000 lbs. and start focusing on the airplanes you're thinking about.

But, AOPA is dollar driven just like any other organization. And you can bet YOUR bottom dollar they're getting more shekels from the bizjet boys than the Piper pukes.

5,000 lbs. would probably be a pretty good point. That's everything up through about a Beech Baron (5,100 lbs. gross), and I'll contend if you can afford a Baron, you can probably afford some user fee's. I'd contend that most planes over about 5,000 lbs. are being used by either INCREDIBLY wealthy Americans as toys (which is where the outrage will be), or business aviation (who can take the hit for all I care), where planes under that weight are probably either trainers or used in such a limited role in the NAS that they're largely not in the way or using resources.

EXACTLY! This is why GA guys getting in a big sweat about the whole issue is amusing to me.

Try to protect it all if you want, but you won't be able to. If I were you guys, I'd be lobbying AOPA incredibly hard to start protecting smaller GA planes instead of trying to be so inclusive of BBJ's.

Well said, John.

Velo, you rail against the elitism of GA and I have to ask: As a person that has had zero involvement with GA how can you even begin to have an opinion?

Just because I'm not a FLAP doesn't mean I have no involvement with GA. I'm involved with them every single day, especially in places like SNA, SAN, OAK, KTN, SIT, JNU, FAI, ANC to name a few.

Maybe if a few more guys like you were furloughed and a plane or two parked the others would make more money and the congestion would go down. After all, not that many people are flying now are they? Hmmm....

Sorry, slick, but I ain't getting furloughed anytime soon, but thanks for the ugly sentiment.

Do you realize how many congress people utilize corporate jets to conduct business? I'm SURE they understand the vitality of the industry, even if for nothing more than being a source of well paying jobs.

Oh, sure. Congressmen. Probably the worst fatcats you could have imagined. That's REALLY good for your argument. NOT.

Oh, so all the corporate jets must now stay below FL180? Great proposal.

I'm pretty sure the corporate operators will find a way to pass the fees on to their fatcat clients. Of course, that might cut into profits. Stop being a shill for the wealthy. But then, you probably think you're taxes are being raised by the Obama Administration. You'd be dead wrong about that as well.

There is nothing elitist about it. Sure, some folks use their airplanes for nothing but pleasure trips, but thats their perogative; after all, they made the money, why shouldn't they get to decide how to spend it?

God I love it when you make the argument for me. If they want to jet off to Aspen in their Gulfstream, go for it. Just pay the user fee. They can afford YOU, they can afford the fee.

Why can't you accept that it is a business tool? Time is money in business.

But I do accept it. Then the user fees become a cost of doing business. Its that simple. Why are YOU so eager to cut them a break?

If every business person in the world took the airlines instead of GA, imagine the increased necessity for more RJ flights on the schedule. That would undoubtedly lead to more airline delays. For that, I think you should be appreciative.

Another logical fallacy. If there was more demand, the airlines could replace RJs with 737s or 757s. Which would reduce congestion even more. Funny how you play the RJ card when your 10 passenger jet takes up exactly the same amount of airspace as a 747.

When was the last time ATC told you that ATL arrivals were on a gate hold due to saturation at PDK or FTY? How about guys going into EWR that were put in a hold due to saturation at TEB? Never, I'd be willing to bet.

You lose. I've seen days in EWR where ALL metro traffic had to depart over a single fix. That includes HPN and TEB.

It happens every day. Nice try though.

You must not be familiar with Angel Flight or any of the Lifeguard flights. I believe we have/had some guys on here that flew for MedCenter Air. Some of those companies are already operating on a shoestring budget. Toss in user fees, and a very vital link in the medical chain is cut out.

Nice use of the scare tactic. You really need to apply to NBAA as a FLAP flack.

I don't understand how GA is the 10 lb object. If GA is 10 lbs, regional airlines are certainly 15-20 lbs on any given day of the week.

I'm not saying RJs aren't part of the problem. I'm all for consolidating RJ flights into larger legacy flights and reducing frequency. But, GA aircraft take up the same amount of airspace and do it for personal convenience or pleasure. Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water.

Imagine a production plant that suffers a catastrophic failure of an important component. You load the mechanics, tools and parts on a corporate jet and you're there in a couple of hours. The machine is back on line 6 hours after it went down. You try the same on the airlines. Half the tools get confiscated by TSA, the mechanics sit in a terminal for a total of 4 hours. The machine finally gets fixed 12 hours after it broke. Time is money man.

Talk about grasping at straws!

Wishing unemployment on someone is a pretty messed up thing to do, don't you think? Especially in these times.

You are afraid, aren't you?

You want the freedom on your bike without excessive charges, I want my freedom in my airplane without excessive charges.

I never said I wouldn't pay any and all fees associated with my chosen hobby. Why won't you?

 

[SteveC]

...GA "puppets"......bizjet boys...FLAP...Sorry, slick...fatcats...fatcat clients....shill for the wealthy...FLAP flack....grasping at straws

Charged phrases = zero credibility.

 

[MQAAord]

Charged phrases = zero credibility.

Exactly.

 

[Velocipede]

Charged phrases = zero credibility.

Takes two to tango, doesn't it? But thanks for rendering your "judgement".

 

[Qgar]

Not that he needs defending--but Velo's not the only one who uses "charged phrases." Sorry, but that's how alot of us see it around here lately.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

No, I'm not afraid. I'm one of the few corporate pilots that DOESN'T wake up in the morning and wonder if he'll still have a job. And I defend my employer because they actually give a about me. I have an issue, I set up a meeting to talk about it. I've become close acquaintances with the CEOs, and they wouldn't hesitate to write me a letter of recommendation If I ever decided to pursue another job. Would your CEO do that?

Again, the congestion is not in the enroute structure, it is in the terminal environment, more precisely on a 10 mile final. If my corporate jet isn't sharing the 10 mile final into EWR, how am I contributing to the airspace problem.

And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain to me how the airlines are fronting the cost for the corporate "fatcats" to go play in Aspen or Boca Raton for the weekend. I'd love to have a cup of coffee while I read that one. I just hope I don't end up spitting it out all over the screen

 

[MQAAord]

Takes two to tango, doesn't it? But thanks for rendering your "judgement".

I think our "judgements" were rendered long ago.

 

[OldTownPilot]

FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, FLAP, Maybe he thinks if he flaps his jaw enough he'll grow some wiiiiiiiings. It's easier to just drink that red bull crap.

 

[Velocipede]

Not that he needs defending--but Velo's not the only one who uses "charged phrases." Sorry, but that's how alot of us see it around here lately.

Your PM box is full.

 

[Qgar]

not anymore!