If you oppose user fees...

I'm opposed to user-fees because they'd pretty much kill my flying hobby, but I must admit, they only seem fair. I know I stand a chance of being hung for suggesting that around here, but I think if I wasn't a pilot, I'd be all for those who use the system having to pay for it.

It sorta reminds me of the situation we have in Florida with home owner's insurance. People are b1tching up a storm about home owner's insurance rates skyrocketing - but what people don't want to admit to is the fact that we live on the biggest target on teh continent, and home values here have increased dramatically over the past three years. State legislators here want insurance companies to spread the costs out across all of their customers - but is that fair? Should some farmer in Kansas have to pay a higher insurance premium because some yuppy decided to build a 10-million dollar stucco home on the water in Florida?

Sure, the general public benefits somewhat from GA, but like I said, if I weren't a pilot, I'd be totally for user fees. Don't hate me - I still pay my AOPA dues and will oppose this, but I was wondering if anyone looks at it the same way I do.
 
First off, thier list of "abuses" was only 7 airports out of the THOUSANDS that recieve federal funding. The whole point that they are omitting from this argument is that these "freeloaders" contribute heavily to the local economy. Especially Business jets, they rent cars, order catering, buy fuel, and deliver paying customers into the local economy that eat at the restaurants, sleep at the hotels, and engage in whatever recreational activities are available.

I know locally, Heber City, UT (36U) whould die without the constant stream of Park City visitors arriving, mostly by private jet. Personally my job as a Fly Fishing guide would not exist without local tourism. About two thirds of my clients arrive at 36U on bizjets. That is how I pay my bills and feed my family.

ANd lets be honest, how much is each passenger paying in taxes. The last ticket I bought on SWA from PVD to SLC and return had a TOTAL of $10 added to it. $10 dollars to cross the country twice.

GA is already expensive enough. If a greater burden is placed upon it, it will die, and the consequences of that will be felt in every community.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I'm opposed to user-fees because they'd pretty much kill my flying hobby, but I must admit, they only seem fair. I know I stand a chance of being hung for suggesting that around here, but I think if I wasn't a pilot, I'd be all for those who use the system having to pay for it.

It sorta reminds me of the situation we have in Florida with home owner's insurance. People are b1tching up a storm about home owner's insurance rates skyrocketing - but what people don't want to admit to is the fact that we live on the biggest target on teh continent, and home values here have increased dramatically over the past three years. State legislators here want insurance companies to spread the costs out across all of their customers - but is that fair? Should some farmer in Kansas have to pay a higher insurance premium because some yuppy decided to build a 10-million dollar stucco home on the water in Florida?

Sure, the general public benefits somewhat from GA, but like I said, if I weren't a pilot, I'd be totally for user fees. Don't hate me - I still pay my AOPA dues and will oppose this, but I was wondering if anyone looks at it the same way I do.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if I wasn't a pilot I wouldn't much care. I wouldn't bother to do any research on it, that is IF I had even ever heard of user fees in the first place.
 
I look at it the same way murdoughnut. Why should society as a whole bear the burden of a select few?

And I really hate AOPA's defense of user fees 'causing' pilots to perform illegal instrument approaches in the UK. It's not user fees that are the cause, it's idiot pilots making bad decisions that are the cause.
 
Do you think I give a rat's ass about $50 million dollar panda research? No.

Do I give half of a hell about some microscopic plankton that took about $100 million to find? Not really. (There are ######## things like this in the budget)

What's next? Should my tax dollars not go to fund public transporation because I don't use it? I've ridden a bus twice in my life, many years ago.

Should some of my taxes go to fund the building of a new water treatment plant? What if I crap in a can instead of a toilet? I shouldn't have to pay for some fancy treatment plant!
 
Screw it. . . this country is filled with ignorant people. . . of which, they consist of about 60% of our present society (IMHO - JC population excluded). If they are this concerned about general aviation, small airports, and taxes that they pay to play. . . I don't give a #### anymore. If they, due to their ignorance, can not appreciate the value that small airports, and the GA industry provide for them. . . then fine, who am I to stop them from moaning and groaning, and eventually killing something that all of us love.

Just remember who you should thank when all of this is said and done with.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Sure, the general public benefits somewhat from GA, but like I said, if I weren't a pilot, I'd be totally for user fees. Don't hate me - I still pay my AOPA dues and will oppose this, but I was wondering if anyone looks at it the same way I do.
Click to expand...

I sort of do, but I'm caught between what I want versus what I feel is justified.

What I feel about the user fees, is that it basically is another payment to the government. We all already pay them, why must we do it again?\

I fully understand and agree with your analogy; however, insurance companies are not part of the government. So they can in a way do whatever they want.
 
frog: PERFECT

This is exactly why i brought this up... My feelings are that I pay for other things I never use, or even more potently, I don't agree with.

This is where I find the sticky situation, do I feel guilty? Nope. Do I see their point, but respectfully still not agree? Yep.

I can see the FAA bringing up that NavCanada just 'decreased' their user fee rates, and they have about 80 million dollars as a surplus... I say to them 'apples and oranges.'
 
E_Dawg said:
I look at it the same way murdoughnut. Why should society as a whole bear the burden of a select few?

And I really hate AOPA's defense of user fees 'causing' pilots to perform illegal instrument approaches in the UK. It's not user fees that are the cause, it's idiot pilots making bad decisions that are the cause.
Click to expand...

I think I just threw up im my mouth a little. How can you say that? I am around people that own their own planes all the time. I can tell you that alot of people WILL skip a weather brief if it costs extra. This will get ugly. All they really have to do is add a penny or two to avgas tax. That will bring in millions of dollars more per year, and I cannot think of a pilot out there that would not pay 1 or 2 cents more to be able to keep their dream alive.
 
This absolutely makes me sick...Like frog said I dont give a rats tail about a microsporangen or anything else that the govt takes my tax dollars for and "plays" with to do research...Go ahead Congress, pass the bill for user fees and taxes on fuel....When GA stops flying and the govt isnt collecting much from them, the airlines are going to have a whole new set of problems in about 10-15 years when those little scum GA people who used "their" money dont have anyone to man "their" aircraft....So go ahead, and get rid of GA and charge astronomical fees, but dont go whining when their are no pilots bc general aviation has ceased to exist bc then those big jets wont move.....
 
It would be selfish to not understand the argument proposed. I do not think it is fair to tax commercial PAX's to support small fields used by GA and corporate flying. Most people paying such taxes have probably never heard of the PA28-161 I train in, so why should they pay for the runway I use. I understand.

But what I have a hard time swallowing is that I need to pay the fees during my training so I can take a low paying job for the airline, who are wining about supporting any such tax. I am struggling everyday with financing flight training and being able to pay the loan back, dreading simply surviving on the low pay the regionals are going to give. Much more fees and taxes and I will be crippled.

I will pray that the FAA does the right thing and does not impose any more hardships on struggling student pilots. It should not be a job for only the rich, it should be within reach of those who love it, much more increase in $$$ and it won't. Tax the corporate? Ok I guess, I do not know anything about the business to offer my two cents, but the airlines had better invest in my portion of the user fees since I am paying for the training they need.

Most great things in life I am learning come with sacrifice. I understand the sacrifice in flying a jet for a living, about a $100,000 in loans for me, but much more and I might have to think about being realistic considering the 20-30K I get for the first few years. If the airlines want to give my my 'fees' back in the form of a paycheck, ok.. I'll smile and pay.

Sorry about the rant... but damn that hurts! Greedy Ba*%#^'s
 
I understand completely the point about people not understanding how GA airports benefit them - but that brings forth the question - if cities/counties benefited so greatly from GA airports, wouldn't they be willing to pick up the bill without federal help (or user fees) in order to ascertain these benefits? For instance, say a city determines that having a GA airport brings in 1-million in resources a year, and it's going to cost $800k to run it each year without the fed's help. If the benefits of having a GA airport outweigh the costs, one would assume that the local government would pick up the bill. At least in that way, the people paying for it (residents of the city/county) would receive a more direct benefit.

And as much as I hate to admit it, maybe closing some GA airports in areas already serviced by several is a good compromise. Where I live (St. Pete) we have four GA dominant airports within a 30-minute drive. It would suck for me, but I imagine we could afford to give one up if it meant not having to deal with user fees.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I understand completely the point about people not understanding how GA airports benefit them - but that brings forth the question - if cities/counties benefited so greatly from GA airports, wouldn't they be willing to pick up the bill without federal help (or user fees) in order to ascertain these benefits? For instance, say a city determines that having a GA airport brings in 1-million in resources a year, and it's going to cost $800k to run it each year without the fed's help. If the benefits of having a GA airport outweigh the costs, one would assume that the local government would pick up the bill. At least in that way, the people paying for it (residents of the city/county) would receive a more direct benefit.

And as much as I hate to admit it, maybe closing some GA airports in areas already serviced by several is a good compromise. Where I live (St. Pete) we have four GA dominant airports within a 30-minute drive. It would suck for me, but I imagine we could afford to give one up if it meant not having to deal with user fees.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me? Did you grow up in the U.S.? If so, didn't they teach you in school about how federal funding works? Now that I think about it, it's not even about how it works... people (in this case governments) will take things that are free. Local governments get a small amount of money for things that are 'important' such as education -- which is always the first thing on a budget chopping block -- and health care and roads. What makes you think they should buck the system and not accept money for airports?
 
daru1 said:
You have got to be kidding me? Did you grow up in the U.S.? If so, didn't they teach you in school about how federal funding works? Now that I think about it, it's not even about how it works... people (in this case governments) will take things that are free. Local governments get a small amount of money for things that are 'important' such as education -- which is always the first thing on a budget chopping block -- and health care and roads. What makes you think they should buck the system and not accept money for airports?
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting they voluntarily stop accepting airport funds - I was talking about a situation where the government no longer provided federal funds (or significantly reduced categorical grants for airport funding).

... and you really didn't need to be a d!ck - I'm someone whose simply curious about what people think about this issue, and possible alternatives.
 
tprops4me said:
I think I just threw up im my mouth a little. How can you say that? I am around people that own their own planes all the time. I can tell you that alot of people WILL skip a weather brief if it costs extra. This will get ugly. All they really have to do is add a penny or two to avgas tax. That will bring in millions of dollars more per year, and I cannot think of a pilot out there that would not pay 1 or 2 cents more to be able to keep their dream alive.
Click to expand...

You just threw up in your mouth a little bit?? If the cost to do it safely is prohibitive, don't do it. Anything less than that is idiotic.

Here's a situation: I once flew in a private aircraft with a guy with a PPL, no instrument rating. The wx ahead was getting bad and he said, "don't worry, if we have to I can just shoot the approach. I even have charts!" You must agree that is an idiotic mentality. Isn't shooting the self-invented approach, even by an IFR pilot, just a variation on this mentality?

Just what the cost should be is a different story. But I'm not against individuals paying for what they use.
 
TravDK said:
It would be selfish to not understand the argument proposed. I do not think it is fair to tax commercial PAX's to support small fields used by GA and corporate flying. Most people paying such taxes have probably never heard of the PA28-161 I train in, so why should they pay for the runway I use. I understand.
Click to expand...

That's a very common argument. Aviation, like life, is a big circle. The results of the funding don't end with GA and the business jets. The results go round and round and round. It isn't free money. That funding is the reason most of us are pilots today. There are way too many benefits to mention. That funding was put into place, specifically to encourage growth where there would be none otherwise. That funding has allowed many businesses to reach out internationally when they otherwise would not have to the extent they do. I sometimes question the need to own a business jet, but time is money and it has been for decades. Time doesn't need to be money, but millions of people have decided it is so that's that. If every business had to send their employees to desinations via the airlines, efficiency would suffer and families would miss their parents. That funding is fed back into the world via growth. It is far from a waste.

I do think that taxes on airline tickets are way too high, though.
 
falconvalley said:
Time doesn't need to be money, but millions of people have decided it is so that's that.
Click to expand...

I learned this the hard way when I entered the world of consulting. I assumed that everyone gave you a reasonable time frame with which to complete tasks for them - I do with the vendors I use - but sadly, this isn't the case. Everythings rushed, sometimes, for no apparent reason.

Sorry for that sidebar - carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top