Obama administration and user fees

Apparently only if you disagree with me!
First, that comment was possibly overboard.
You being perhaps the only other AOCS grad on this board, and a very experienced airline captain, I tend to think you naturally command respect.

Then you do the old multi quote drive by posting, you lose credibility exponentially fast. After a few months months of it, and folks are not willing to listen.
 
If you read all of his post, you will see his hate for aviation.

Dude, relax. I think you read WAY too much into things. I don't get that impression at all, in fact, just the opposite.

Oh crap, now I'm into this mess. :rolleyes:
 
Again though, it pits union "brothers" against one another. I could see trying to not allow non-union carriers into it, but when one union begins...in essence...stabbing the other in the back because they're from "another tribe"; it takes away from the concept of unions in the first place and gives it more of a mob mentality; where everyone is on the same team, yes, but no one really trusts one another.

Meh, I don't see it that way at all. I have a negotiated right to use ALPA Aeromedical but, pilots from Southwest do not. They did not pay for it or support it in anyway. Kinda the same thing. Now, if SWA pilots want to pitch in and help then I am all for them also having the benefit. But, once again, the discussion is purely academic because the there is no proposal.
 
No, it has more to do with who negotiated the right. This is purely academic but, if ALPA paid for the effort to implement Crewpass and no other Union or group helped should they get a free ride? Membership has its benefits. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Not only did ALPA pay for the lobbying to get it, they actually paid for the computers that the TSA is using for it! Notice the big ALPA stickers on the laptops in use at the CrewPASS checkpoint in BWI.

I see what you're saying and agree to the concept. But does this mean that multiple unions can't exist in the same profession? Just asking out of honest curiousity.

Preferably not. Unions have the most leverage when they are bigger and represent all members of that profession. Right now, the independents (includig my own, the NPA) leech off of the hard work that the 35 pilot groups within ALPA are able to accomplish. If they are receiving the benefits, they should be contributing the dues revenue and volunteer time.

Go to bed Todd, this is getting spooky. You wrote almost the same thing as me. ;)

Bed? Talladega Nights is still on for another 15 minutes! "Shake and bake, baby!" :D
 
Dude, relax. I think you read WAY too much into things. I don't get that impression at all, in fact, just the opposite.


Originally Posted by Velocipede View Post
Personally, I'm sick of having to dodge the idiot beachcombers in SoCal everytime I go to SNA or LGB. If it takes taxation to get them out of the way, so be it.

The proof is in the puddin'
 
Exactly. Not only did ALPA pay for the lobbying to get it, they actually paid for the computers that the TSA is using for it! Notice the big ALPA stickers on the laptops in use at the CrewPASS checkpoint in BWI.
Can you ask them to chip in to help with the cost? I guess that is too simple to work.

What do the airline pilots who actually came up through the GA system think of this proposal (PCL, did you instruct for a while?)
 
Can you ask them to chip in to help with the cost? I guess that is too simple to work.

Most of the cost is associated with lobbying and PAC contributions, and the law allows only members to contribute to the PAC.

What do the airline pilots who actually came up through the GA system think of this proposal (PCL, did you instruct for a while?)

Yes, I worked as a CFI for about a year.
 
Yes, I worked as a CFI for about a year.

PCL,

I remember having this debate with you a couple of years ago at the other place. I don't feel like sifting through my old posts over there, but I'm pretty sure you were pro user fees since it would limit the amount of new pilots entering the system. Is that still how you feel?
 
If you are for user fees as listed on this proposal, your motivation is not cost sharing, it is simply to kill general aviation, or pilots you deem unworthy to share the skies with you. If you truly are concerned about cost sharing, then registration fees and fuel taxes would be something you would support more then ATC user fees. Adding a cost to every interaction with ATC is a horribly unsafe idea.
 
Agreed. I think we all know what we'd see on the rise as a result of that.
You see, that is the argument the Anti-GA lobby wants us to make, because it proves that we are scud running nutjobs who don't deserve to be flying in the first place.
 
Velo, as always, you are the man!

Thank you. Kudos gratefully accepted.

But Velo, don't you realize that defending your "right" to putt around the sky in a 152 for virtually free is more important than actually making a living so you can afford to support your GA hobby in the first place? Silly air line pilot. ;)

What was I thinking? :banghead:

Since when has support for user fees equated to "hating" GA? Does someone "hate" cars if they like the ideas of toll roads? Does someone "hate" fishing if they support the idea of requiring a fishing license?

Because you're either for me or against me. If you're against me, you hate me. Man, it must be nice to live in a world where everything is black and white.

Outstanding. Pitting one pilot group against all others isn't a great idea for union solidarity.....well, maybe just ALPA.

I think if you read the ALPA admin manual you'd find that ALPA supports diverse Unions working together. As an example, the National Committee I'm on works CLOSELY with the UPS guys on common issues.

I don't feel like like getting into this and, I am not. But, I'm in Velo's corner.

Again, thanks for the support. But just remember, being on my side makes you automatically a hater of aviation. How do you manage to earn a living every day in a profession you hate?

No, it's more like a small handful of independents and non-union cariers want to leech off of ALPA's influence and success. I'm not saying that I think it should actually be done, but I do think the concept has validity. At some point, you have to say that the non-ALPA carriers need to come into the fold to reap the benefits.

Amen. I still haven't gotten an answer as to why non-Union pilots feel they are entitled to Union negotiated privileges.

No, it has more to do with who negotiated the right. This is purely academic but, if ALPA paid for the effort to implement Crewpass and no other Union or group helped should they get a free ride? Membership has its benefits. :rolleyes:

See above comment.

I see what you're saying and agree to the concept. But does this mean that multiple unions can't exist in the same profession? Just asking out of honest curiousity.

Not at all. ALL Unions help raise the bar for the other guys. As an example, SWAPA's recent contract is raising the bar for every narrowbody Union pilot in this country.

Likewise non-Union pilots like Virgin, Allegiant and jetBlue exert pressure the opposite direction by working for substandard wages/benefits.

Then you do the old multi quote drive by posting, you lose credibility exponentially fast. After a few months months of it, and folks are not willing to listen.

It seems you are only unwilling to listen when you don't agree with my position. And the name calling is a nice touch.

Now, if SWA pilots want to pitch in and help then I am all for them also having the benefit. But, once again, the discussion is purely academic because the there is no proposal.

True. You want a benefit (or to use the system) just be prepared to pay for it.

Personally, I'm sick of having to dodge the idiot beachcombers in SoCal everytime I go to SNA or LGB. If it takes taxation to get them out of the way, so be it.

The proof is in the puddin'

Have you ever flown into SNA? Personally, I think it is the most hazardous airport in our route system. And its simply because of all the GA operations there. Guys doing touch and gos in their Pitts Specials in close proximity to airline traffic operating to one of the shortest runways in the Nation. Additionally, ridiculous noise abatement procedures that create flight deck angles that make it impossible to "see and avoid" the GA pilots
wandering around with their head up their butts.

I'll give you two of inumerable incidents that happened to me at that airport.

Turning base in broken clouds, I went canopy to canopy with a V tail Bonanza who was scud running through the airspace without a clearance.

Then there was the genuis in his Beaver who taxiied out in front of us. We had been given a takeoff clearance and were running up the engines. He was told to hold short and acknowledged. Just as the Captain was about to release the brakes, he taxiied over the hold short line and lined up in front of us (a 737 with all its lights on and tail shaking at full power!). Fortunately, we were able to recognize his stupidity BEFORE brake release. Take off clearance cancelled, thank God!

Just because I want to keep GA clowns out of congested airspace and think some additional taxation might do the trick doesn't make me "hate aviation."

Do I hate stupidity, especially in airplanes? Yes. Do GA pilots exhibit that with greater frequency as a whole? Yes.

Why? Lack of experience. Pure and simple. You keep your bug smashers out in the country VFR at local use airports and you won't pay the user fees. I'm fine with that. But, if you want to sight see up and down the beach between LGB and Dana Point, be prepared to pay for it.
 
PCL,

I remember having this debate with you a couple of years ago at the other place. I don't feel like sifting through my old posts over there, but I'm pretty sure you were pro user fees since it would limit the amount of new pilots entering the system. Is that still how you feel?
See the funny thing is, the wannabe regional FOs will just tack on an extra 10k to their loans and you will have done very little to restrict the supply of airline pilots. What this will do is kill or at least very drastically change the lives of the people who fly GA for the sake of flying GA.
 
Just because I want to keep GA clowns out of congested airspace and think some additional taxation might do the trick doesn't make me "hate aviation."

Do I hate stupidity, especially in airplanes? Yes. Do GA pilots exhibit that with greater frequency as a whole? Yes.

Why? Lack of experience. Pure and simple. You keep your bug smashers out in the country VFR at local use airports and you won't pay the user fees. I'm fine with that. But, if you want to sight see up and down the beach between LGB and Dana Point, be prepared to pay for it.


Ok Velo,

I understand that there are a few guys that might make life hard on you, but dont lump all GA into being bad pilots. That is a baseless argument, and shame on you for saying it, you should know better.

You do realize that most GA pilots(bug smashers) are airline pilots or former airline pilots?

You still cant convince me that GA is getting a free ride. We pay tax on fuel and property tax on the aircraft. I am starting to think that you are posting this stuff purely for shock value.

I'm sorry, but you have no clue about GA as a whole.

If you want to make an argument about taxing business jets/turboprops then I can probably be convinced. Keep in mind that all these so-called "fatcats" that we are flying around own businesses that employ hundreds if not thousands of people that fly airlines everyday.

You just cant convince me to kill one of the last great american institutions. You are always trying convince people to stand arm and arm with your pilot Brethren, well GA is also your pilot brethren, and many of us would lose our JOBS with this taxation. Does this not bother you?

GA is not all puddle jumpers and bug smashers. There are many "mom and pop" 135 operations that are hurting right now. From what I gather about you, you seem to support the little guy, why not these?

I'm making an attempt to be civil here..
 
Not really. Don't use the system and it won't cost you anything.

And that is one of the issues I have with your argument. If the user fees are so desperately needed by the NAS, then your statement makes no sense. If you drive away the GA and they don't use the system and pay user fees, then no money will be collected, and if no money is collected then the budget shortfalls are not paid for. Now, you could contract the system - but my question from earlier remains - how much can you contract the system in reality? Sure, those who do pay the user fees will be a little more than now, but it will not be a big revenue producer - so, on top of user fees they will still need to find ways to fund the budget shortfall. Please explain this so that it makes sense - I would love to think that there is some logic behind it, but as of now I see it as simply another money grab that will not be effectual and is purely an attack on the freedom and mobility of GA.
 
"About" is what? 6 months?

Also, was that before or after you paid to be a FO at Gulfstream?
that has nothing to do with the topic on hand...let's keep to the topic so it doesn't get closed down ok? if you're going to go on the attack, please take it to PMs
 
Back
Top