Obama administration and user fees

Codyjp said:
4 pages of hype about this and we still don't have any specifics of how the charges will be set.

The Bush admin. tried to do this during their 8 years and failed, the Obama administration will fail too.

It is all going to come down to the fact that the majority of ATC services are there to support the airlines (regardless of how much use they incur vs GA). Everybody knows that they wont shell out any more money so it will be dropped from the budget again.

The NAS is a service provided by the government similar to law enforcement and fire protection (even though most of those agencies are on a state/local level) if the users are charged a fee then people wont be using the services. This will lower air safety for the general public and that would be bad.

Lets get some specifics before we panic everybody! sheesh.
Click to expand...

Exactly..The chances this will ever make it to law is in all actuality slim to none anyway. And they are not going to create a fee system, if it ever passed, that would serve to further depress an already depressed industry. The fee structure likely will not effect flight training or part 61 flying to the degree of making it any more unaffordable then it already is.
 
Velocipede said:
And Lufthansa, one of the airlines that does this has one of the best safety records in the world. Ever heard of the Air Force? They put pilots in the right seat of C-130s, C-17s, KC-10s and other crew served airplanes with that level of experience as well.

And (GASP!) the Navy has fighter pilots flying around alone with less than 500 hrs total time.
Click to expand...

Come on. You know that the Lufthansa ab initio and military training is different. The Lufties are interviewed, evaluated, and vetted much more thoroughly than somebody who strokes (or whose parents stroke) a check to the FL flight school du jour.
 
I find it amusing the liberals defending user fee's.
GA is foundation of all of aviation in this country. You hurt GA, you hurt everyone in aviation. I teach Europeans how to fly, they come here because it is cheaper, they avoid user fee's.
I guess if I only cared about myself and no one else, I'd be glad people will not be able to afford flight training so demand goes up for pilots, never mind that little kid who has a dream to become a pilot but can't because of money. And forget about the flight schools in this country, who needs them helping the economy? Screw em all, drive em out of business...
I think anyone who openly defends an increase in taxes or fee's should be tarred and feathered.
 
Velocipede said:
Hey, no one is questioning how you spend your disposable income. Its just time to pay for the services you use. The free ride is over.
Click to expand...

I do pay, but you repeatedly ignore that FACT, and emotionally go on about some BS perception that you wrongly have.

This isnt the first time that you have done that either. But nope, Velocipede is some supreme idol that can't be wrong. :rolleyes:

If you calm down and DO realize that we DO pay into the system, it will be better for all of our blood pressures.
 
General Aviation can exist without the ATC system. Everyone goes back to Cubs and Champs and VFR but it could exist. Even corporate would exist, albeit with Barons and such VFR. Airlines could not exist without ATC. The sweeping changes and the FAA itself were born out of the Grand Canyon Mid-Air between UAL and TWA in my opinion. The ATC system makes the airlines possible and they should bear the brunt of paying for the system. Last time I was waiting for take off at ORD, DFW or ATL it wasn't a long line of Warriors, Skyhawks, Barons or Corporate jets I saw out the window - it was other airliners. Now - regulate who gets access to airspace at given times and put that up for auction - great. Relieve the flow problems at the busiest airports by selling access at peak times to the highest bidders - and use that money to fund the FAA. That way, people can vote with their wallets - want into LGA at a peak time - ticket is more. Want to get in earlier or leave later - ticket is less.
 
Airline usage of the system really *is* the problem. I've sat and waited, for max, maybe 1 corporate aircraft in the year + I've been on the line. Now, the 2+ hour ground times, those were all airlines. Something needs to give and it's the airlines - they can just go ahead and charge their customers anyways.

There is no reason that GA guys should have to bear the brunt of a system abused by the airlines. The way the government will find this money is if it quits spending all the gas taxes on its crap programs (how does the TSA manage to exist with only a "9/11 Security Fee" :rolleyes:)

Oh and.... with AOPA and NBAA against this, I see a very formidible opponent to the ATA.
 
One more thing, Velo. Just like you have told Don to stay out of passenger airline issues, we are telling you to stay out of GA issues. Hypocrite.

Now if you told us GA types things that were not outright lies, a lot of us might believe you when it comes to union issues. Whats to make us trust you to tell the truth there when we know you aren't telling the truth here?
 
Velocipede said:
Hey, no one is questioning how you spend your disposable income. Its just time to pay for the services you use. The free ride is over.
Click to expand...

It isn't GA that is the true customer of the system. It is the airlines and more to the point the people that fly on the airlines. Increase ticket prices $3 per ticket and you would end up with significantly more money to pay for the system in one day than you would be able to collect from GA in over a year. Just like the idea of UPS/Fedex have millions of customers per day as opposed to pax carriers having less. It is easier to pass small incremental costs over a greater number of people. Hell, $1 per ticket added to cost would generate more in a month than user fees in GA. Add to this that it also wouldn't take any additional bureaucracy to enact this (which is probably the part that democrats don't like about it). The true users of the ATC system are the people riding on the airlines - not GA.
 
RightSeatGirl said:
Think about it..if they slap a $10 dollar fee on every single or light twin that files an IFR flight plan in addition to 121 , 135 and part 91 operators, that will translate to tens of millions of dollars annually. If you can't cough up another ten bucks then well....you may want to think about a part time job at McDonald's or drink one less twelve pack a week or something. Now if the fees are excessive (which there is no reason yet to assume they will be) that will indeed be a problem.
Click to expand...

If it were only a small fee like that for filing IFR, that would be one thing. Sure, people would still complain (pilots, we love to do that!) but what we would likely see is the European model get implemented here. Maybe not all at once, but a fee for this and a fee for that would eventually work its way in. You give government a toe hold, they'll take the whole leg.

I too am of the opinion that this is unlikely to pass, given the tenacity of AOPA and NBAA.
 
surreal1221 said:
Why are Obamites suppose to defend every policy the President desires?

Kinda silly if you ask me. I knew many Bues and Clintonites who objected to their "President."
Click to expand...

Excellent point, and well taken. I voted for W twice yet now look at him as the worst ever.
 
RightSeatGirl said:
I'll restate before I post..I do not support GA user fees.

But here's the thing..I think some of you guys are taking an alarmist position on this. I really doubt GA user fees will end up making GA flying cost prohibitive. Think about it..if they slap a $10 dollar fee on every single or light twin that files an IFR flight plan in addition to 121 , 135 and part 91 operators, that will translate to tens of millions of dollars annually. If you can't cough up another ten bucks then well....you may want to think about a part time job at McDonald's or drink one less twelve pack a week or something. Now if the fees are excessive (which there is no reason yet to assume they will be) that will indeed be a problem.
Click to expand...

I read an article on Europe user fees a while back (I'll have to find it for ya). A guy took a light single across Europe to see how much it would cost. He went from like England to Italy or something. It ended up being like 2 grand or so in user fees. Not only was it a fee to take off, land and file IFR, but also a fee for the approach, hope ya don't have to go missed!! another fee..and another for the approach AGAIN. Better not have to divert!!! There was even a fee for EVERY controller he talked to. I mean, same center but different freq. How many frequencies does a flight from LAX to JFK have? That is A LOT of money of stupid fees..
 
Codyjp said:
4 pages of hype about this and we still don't have any specifics of how the charges will be set...Lets get some specifics before we panic everybody! sheesh.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But, OMG, someone might have to pay a user fee! OMG, THE SKY IS FALLING!

deadstick said:
Come on. You know that the Lufthansa ab initio and military training is different. The Lufties are interviewed, evaluated, and vetted much more thoroughly than somebody who strokes (or whose parents stroke) a check to the FL flight school du jour.
Click to expand...

Correct. And perhaps that's how airline pilots are going to have to be developed in the future.

OldTownPilot said:
One more thing, Velo. Just like you have told Don to stay out of passenger airline issues, we are telling you to stay out of GA issues. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

This isn't purely a GA issue, OTP. Its a NAS usage issue. I guess since I'm a NAS user to the tune of 85 hours a month, I am qualified to comment on it.

As far as the economics, you stay VFR and out of controlled airspace and you won't have to pay user fees. That's pretty simple.

Now would you care to explain why GA has the highest accident rate per 1000 hours flown of ANY sector of the U.S. flying community?

Whats to make us trust you to tell the truth there when we know you aren't telling the truth here?
Click to expand...

I guess its automatically a "lie" when someone suggests you should pay for the services you use. Heck the airlines do, why can't you? Ever heard of landing fees?
 
Velocipede said:
I guess its automatically a "lie" when someone suggests you should pay for the services you use. Heck the airlines do, why can't you? Ever heard of landing fees?
Click to expand...

The difference is I don't care to pay twice for the same service. ATC service isn't a private fee-based service; it comes out of my taxes already. It would be akin to having a municipal fire department paid for by the taxes you already pay; then being forced to pay a fee on top of that for when you call them.
 
MikeD said:
The difference is I don't care to pay twice for the same service. ATC service isn't a private fee-based service; it comes out of my taxes already. It would be akin to having a municipal fire department paid for by the taxes you already pay; then being forced to pay a fee on top of that for when you call them.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
Velocipede said:
Exactly. But, OMG, someone might have to pay a user fee! OMG, THE SKY IS FALLING!



Correct. And perhaps that's how airline pilots are going to have to be developed in the future.



This isn't purely a GA issue, OTP. Its a NAS usage issue. I guess since I'm a NAS user to the tune of 85 hours a month, I am qualified to comment on it.

As far as the economics, you stay VFR and out of controlled airspace and you won't have to pay user fees. That's pretty simple.

Now would you care to explain why GA has the highest accident rate per 1000 hours flown of ANY sector of the U.S. flying community?



I guess its automatically a "lie" when someone suggests you should pay for the services you use. Heck the airlines do, why can't you? Ever heard of landing fees?
Click to expand...

What don't you get about WE ALREADY PAY FOR IT! ??????

To the tune of 19 cents per gallon of avgas, if I fly VFR or IFR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top