CNN: Tower Closures

Sometimes the truth hurts. Y'all can scream at the top of your lungs about how user fees are bad as much as you want, call me a poopy head for thinking they are a good idea, but if those opposed to them aren't more pragmatic about it, get ready to be in for disappointment when they are implemented.
 
Seggy said:
Sometimes the truth hurts. Y'all can scream at the top of your lungs about how user fees are bad as much as you want, call me a poopy head for thinking they are a good idea, but if those opposed to them aren't more pragmatic about it, get ready to be in for disappointment when they are implemented.
Click to expand...

Same true then to gun regulations as they are implemented as well.

And I'm a owner of both.
 
Seggy said:
Sometimes the truth hurts. Y'all can scream at the top of your lungs about how user fees are bad as much as you want, call me a poopy head for thinking they are a good idea, but if those opposed to them aren't more pragmatic about it, get ready to be in for disappointment when they are implemented.
Click to expand...

Any user fee would be primarily paid by airlines - in practice, it wouldn't change things much for me. The problem I see is the cost involved in collecting the fees. I assume we are using Europe as a model, where the fees are calculated a based upon distance and gross weight. Controllers would now need to be keeping track of every tail number, how much it weighed, and the distance it flew. Which means more controllers are needed. And more money. This would clearly effect airlines more than anyone else.

This also means that bean counters will be monkeying with routes to avoid paying the fees. Which will cause more work for everyone.

Just my opinion, but based on what I have seen overseas, user fees would cause more headaches for airlines and controllers. The whole exercise seems counter productive to me - if the FAA is that broke, why not just raise the fuel tax that is already there?

(BTW, airline revenue has gone up dramatically, which causes them to pay more. GA hours flown have gone down substantially, which causes them to pay less. Which is already a "pay for use" model.)
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Any user fee would be primarily paid by airlines - in practice, it wouldn't change things much for me. The problem I see is the cost involved in collecting the fees. I assume we are using Europe as a model, where the fees are calculated a based upon distance and gross weight. Controllers would now need to be keeping track of every tail number, how much it weighed, and the distance it flew. Which means more controllers are needed. And more money. This would clearly effect airlines more than anyone else.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't assume. The collection would not need to be controllers. One could have a FAA Branch, separate from the ATC hierarchy that can handle the collection of fees. Just because a controller works a sector, doesn't mean they are responsible for fixing the radar site in their airspace.
 
Seggy said:
I wouldn't assume. The collection would not need to be controllers. One could have a FAA Branch, separate from the ATC hierarchy that can handle the collection of fees. Just because a controller works a sector, doesn't mean they are responsible for fixing the radar site in their airspace.
Click to expand...

Who would pay for the new FAA branch? Ticket surcharge?
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Who would pay for the new FAA branch? Ticket surcharge?
Click to expand...

I am sure you can find the money in existing places. With some of the consolidation in the regionals you don't need all these FSDOs overseeing airlines that don't exist anymore. Reassign the money from the FSDOs who are over budgeted, under worked and you have an answer to your question that you are trying to trap me on.
 
Seggy said:
I am sure you can find the money in existing places. With some of the consolidation in the regionals you don't need all these FSDOs overseeing airlines that don't exist anymore. Reassign the money from the FSDOs who are over budgeted, under worked and you have an answer to your question that you are trying to trap me on.
Click to expand...

FSDOs are there for aviation safety. You are suggesting we cut them so we can hire more tax collectors?
 
drunkenbeagle said:
FSDOs are there for aviation safety. You are suggesting we cut them so we can hire more tax collectors?
Click to expand...

There are a lot sitting around certain FSDOs who airlines have gone out of business in the last year (think Colgan, Comair, L-ExpressJet going to the ATL FSDO), who at aren't doing anything safety related where the money can be directed. Furthermore, let us cut the bull, you work in IT, and I am sure you can have a data program add a tag on the data blocks collected already that can work to handle data collection of the fees.
 
Seggy said:
Furthermore, let us cut the bull, you work in IT, and I am sure you can have a data program add a tag on the data blocks collected already that can work to handle data collection of the fees.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, it would probably cost a small fortune. With things that old, and that require lots of testing, no one really wants to bid on those projects. When they do, they want the contract to go on for 20 years. The corporations that bid this work are only really experts in writing bids, they need to find other people to actually implement it. By the time that happens, the funding usually gets cut. Short answer - the FAA would be better off doing it themselves.
 
Seggy said:
There are a lot sitting around certain FSDOs who airlines have gone out of business in the last year (think Colgan, Comair, L-ExpressJet going to the ATL FSDO), who at aren't doing anything safety related where the money can be directed. Furthermore, let us cut the bull, you work in IT, and I am sure you can have a data program add a tag on the data blocks collected already that can work to handle data collection of the fees.
Click to expand...

Or...we could assign this glut of FSDO workers you claim exists to other FSDOs and have things like RVSM LOAs take less than six months to process.

Or...maybe we could just make the fees themselves high enough to cover the cost. And if there are budget issues in the future? Just raise the fees! I mean it's only rich guys that use GA anyway, right? It won't have any effect on safety.
Besides, all the money will go towards aviation and improving aviation infrastructure; I mean no government has ever raised fees on something to pay for something completely unrelated. Oh wait, a couple of years ago Illinois tripled the driver's license renewal fee to $30. Was it because the cost of printing a 1.5" x 3" piece of plastic went up? Nope! I was just a source of revenue for a cash strapped state.

Yes, let's institute user fees and stifle an industry that is already nearly out of reach to the common person...

/rant

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
How many times have we beaten the User Fee argument to death with Seggy? He wants them and for whatever reason fails to see why it how it would hurt the very industry that put him where it he is today. How would you have felt if you were facing the fees when you were training? Well, actually, I think I already know what the answer is going to be.
 
rd757 said:
How many times have we beaten the User Fee argument to death with Seggy? He wants them and for whatever reason fails to see why it how it would hurt the very industry that put him where it he is today. How would you have felt if you were facing the fees when you were training? Well, actually, I think I already know what the answer is going to be.
Click to expand...

I have mentioned numerous times for light aircraft training the user fees should be minimal.
 
Which sounds great (to the guys that burn 100LL) until someone discovers that there is money to be made off the piston planes too. You know, the camel's nose and the tent?

Please tell me how this is superior to, and what is wrong with the fuel tax to fund the system?

Oh...Bonanzas (the vast majority of them) burn 100LL. As do Barons.

What about the new 182s with diesel (Jet A) engines?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Seggy said:
I have mentioned numerous times for light aircraft training the user fees should be minimal.
Click to expand...

Then why bother at all?

A better question- what are the benefits of user fees for ATC services? How would they improve efficiency? How would they improve safety?
 
Seggy said:
Nope, a lot of baby King Airs, Barons, Cheyennes, Bonanzas, PC-12s, etc. that clog up the system. I think that if it has piston engines, one pays nothing. You burn Jet-A, you pay.
Click to expand...

This makes absolutely no sense. So only Jet-A burning aircraft are the ones "clogging the system"? Yeah, there are no piston twins that are used for charter/air taxi.

No new fees/taxes.

How about we stop wasting money elsewhere in the world and we use that money to fund things here at home. Our system is broken, and simply finding a new way to collect money isn't going to fix it. Again, it's like giving money to a crack head. Where do you think that money is going to go? How long do you think it would take before user fee funds are found overseas helping other political interests?
 
Mark815 said:
This makes absolutely no sense. So only Jet-A burning aircraft are the ones "clogging the system"? Yeah, there are no piston twins that are used for charter/air taxi.

No new fees/taxes.

How about we stop wasting money elsewhere in the world and we use that money to fund things here at home. Our system is broken, and simply finding a new way to collect money isn't going to fix it. Again, it's like giving money to a crack head. Where do you think that money is going to go? How long do you think it would take before user fee funds are found overseas helping other political interests?
Click to expand...
Pt 121 & 135 ops pay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top