SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
So in your mind, someone who doesn't like the way AOPA is playing their members is "pulling up the ladder?"
Save G.A.
- Thread starter Sprint100
- Start date
So in your mind, someone who doesn't like the way AOPA is playing their members is "pulling up the ladder?"
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
That's what it looks like to me Todd.
It's pathetic though huh?
It's pathetic though huh?
falconvalley
Absentee Dad of the OOTSK, Runner, Cat Frustrator
None of those GA pilots want the airlines to pay for their hobby.
If you wanna be a WG-12 flying an airplane, that's one thing. To say that GA should pay for your pay is not the answer. Maybe it's because my parents didn't pay for my college or flying lessons, but I just don't think making 152 pilots pay for an airline ticket is going to be the answer. The airlines won't be forced to change their business models and will still fail to the same degree. User fees are a bailout in a deregulated market. They won't work this way.
If you wanna be a WG-12 flying an airplane, that's one thing. To say that GA should pay for your pay is not the answer. Maybe it's because my parents didn't pay for my college or flying lessons, but I just don't think making 152 pilots pay for an airline ticket is going to be the answer. The airlines won't be forced to change their business models and will still fail to the same degree. User fees are a bailout in a deregulated market. They won't work this way.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Indeed.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Ah shucks!
Airdale
Well-Known Member
Mike, I didn't forget where I came from. In fact, I'm reminded every month when the bill comes in. I am also reminded of just how screwed up the whole situation is when I sit down to pay the bills.
GA is where I earned my wings, its where I learned how to fly. Its where I would like to still have some "fun". Other than an invite to go fly my buddies Cub, I don't get to do any GA stuff because its already too expensive. So what if they add a user fee? I already can't afford to go fly, what the heck is another few bucks? Airline pilots as a whole have suffered enough in their wallets, what makes GA pilots think they are shielded from the National Aviation issues?
Again, AOPA paints such a horrible picture and every Cessna and Piper pilots gets their panties in a bunch and AOPA gets a bunch of their money - exactly what they want. What does AOPA do with that money? Sure they do some good things, but changes in the aerospace system are financed by the Airlines and they are because of the airlines. AOPA used to call me once a month wanting my money. Until I finally explained to the guy that I was up to my eyeballs in debt trying to get my ratings did they finally leave me alone. AOPA isn't the enemy, but they are a waste of money.
ALPA is the best thing we've (121 pilots) got to work with. Like it or not, ALPA has had more of an effect on the Aerospace system than anyone else.
Again, GA is a hobby. Until I can make enough money to enjoy that "hobby", I really don't care about a few dollar fees. If that helps to shallow the pilot pool and puts more bargaining power to us for wages, than so be it. Those that want to succeed will overcome the challenges. I'm living proof.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You're still listening to the AOPA/NBAA garbage. There have been no proposals to impose user fees on GA aircraft! AOPA and the NBAA are using the term "GA" for business jets just so they can incite fear in the real GA pilots to get them to go along with fighting this. If the ATA gets what they want and the user fees are imposed, not a single GA pilot will have to pay user fees. Don't fall for AOPA's half-truths.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I don't want to get rid of GA. I like GA. What I don't like is rich guys with their Learjets not paying their fair share. What I don't like is AOPA lying to their members and using their membership dollars to fight something that doesn't benefit them.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
A solution I prefer is the following...
Remove the federal security fee on the price of tickets and reduce the other taxes on the price of tickets. The security fee itself is around 1.5billion/year of tax revenue plus another few billion in reduction of existing taxes. Of course these funds would have to come from elsewhere in the budget but given the state of the airline industry at the moment (precarious) I think a reduction of these taxes which directly influence the cost of a ticket would allow everyone to raise the price of tickets while maintaining the same end-customer price.
If you consider that the airline industry is a public utility and essential for the healthy running of our economy then it doesn't make sense that only people who buy tickets bare the total cost for its security. It would be like charging a fee for people who call 911 and have the police show up because they're the ones who are using the police's services.
Remove the federal security fee on the price of tickets and reduce the other taxes on the price of tickets. The security fee itself is around 1.5billion/year of tax revenue plus another few billion in reduction of existing taxes. Of course these funds would have to come from elsewhere in the budget but given the state of the airline industry at the moment (precarious) I think a reduction of these taxes which directly influence the cost of a ticket would allow everyone to raise the price of tickets while maintaining the same end-customer price.
If you consider that the airline industry is a public utility and essential for the healthy running of our economy then it doesn't make sense that only people who buy tickets bare the total cost for its security. It would be like charging a fee for people who call 911 and have the police show up because they're the ones who are using the police's services.
There are too many hub-and-spokes competiting with each other, driving fares to unsustainable levels. That's the overiding reason why airlines are not making money. Your insistence on shifting ancillary costs to people that don't cause them hardly seems fair when it doesn't solve the base problem. Your solution will do nothing except hurt others, and the temporary relief the airlines see will quickly disappear as the individual airlines continue to lower fares to try to steal customers away from the competition. The dive to the bottom will continue, and pilots will continue to pay the price.
It's a brutal fact of life that competition will need to weed out the weaker companies, for the benefit of the industry as a whole. Artificial means of keeping companies afloat (can you say "bankruptcy court ordered payscale rollbacks"?) are temporary answers that do nothing but hurt everyone in the long term. We'll end up right back where we are now, with airlines unable to make money, and those of us that have done nothing to cause the airline's problem paying costs incurred because of the airline system of operation!
bronco21016
I know H.T.M.L. (How To Meet Ladies)
I'm glad I don't live my life on this forum. Some people need to get out once in awhile.
I would agree with you if that were true.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure no one lives their life on this forum.
Fly_Unity
Well-Known Member
Damn PCL! I <3 U! :laff:
Sorry bud, but I have to disagree. Its a portion of the economy for sure, but its not "sizable". Walmart has more of an impact on the economy than GA.
Might I politely ask what you have been smoking? :cwm27: Do you even realize how many passengers are transported in the Airline system in a single day in the US? I'm sorry my friend, but if you took every pax GA carries in a day and put them in about 3 A300's you would still have seats available. :laff:
GA doesn't support the economy. The Airlines are essential to the economy. GA is not. The American economy doesn't care about General Aviation. Sorry. GA is a hobby, Airlines are a business. Its the same battle going on between Recreational Fisherman and Commercial Fisherman. Guess what? The Commercial dollar wins and it always will. I have been a member of the RFA (Recreational Fishermans Alliance) for 9 years and have supported their fight against Commercial fisherman taking over our state waters. We continue to lose ground every year and I'm no longer contributing so much money. Its the same thing.
General Aviation pilots should keep their noses out of the Airline operations. Period. If you have no experience with what you are talking about, then please spare us all another useless post.
You GA guys need to get your heads out of AOPA's butt. User fees are not proposed for you GA Mom and Pop FBO flyers (I'm one of them too, I fly 172's and Seminoles for fun). Stop standing up for the Corporate Jet operators that are skating by with not paying their fair share. You guys all got your AOPA panties in a wad over nothing. Until flying a Commercial Airliner is in your interest, than you shouldn't make comments about what the Airline business needs to do and how us paid Professional Pilots should be supporting the Airlines and the greedy passengers on our backs while our own families suffer.
Oh but don't worry. When you need to fly 1200 miles to see your family or take a vacation, you can count on the Airlines to get you there for under $300, courtesy of mine and every other pilots salary.
Actually I never smoked in my life, But it is true GA carries for people then then airlines (GA is all flying except Military and Scheduled airlines), Did you know 98% of the planes are GA aircraft and GA accounts for more then 80% of the hours being flown?
GA has a huge influence on this economy, and its not just a hobby. Here in MT 1 out of 200 people are pilots, and GA is a way of life. Maybe your just a city slicker that went to a pilot mill that all you ever see and hear about is airlines, I dont know. If you ever come to Yellowstone let me know, I'll take you out in a super cub, try some Low Level Mountain flying, land at a grass strip in the mountains, and maybe even visit a small town that is only accessible by plane in MT you may even get hooked on GA
. Airlines are pretty much non existent here. Ask Alaska what they think of GA? they depend on it everyday.
The problem with your scenario is that the airlines can't raise their ticket prices because of the marketplace. As soon as some *slack* comes into the cost structure (through reduction in taxes or fees) the airlines will have to respond by lowering their selling prices, or risk losing customers to the other airlines that do exactly that. It is the exact same reason that airlines don't simply "raise their ticket prices by $10 each", and magically become profitable. The market has too many hub-and-spoke carriers competing for the same end-result city pairs. Anything that doesn't address that fundamental issue are stop-gap measures at best, and do not result in a healthy industry.
Sprint100
Well-Known Member
So in your mind, someone who doesn't like the way AOPA is playing their members is "pulling up the ladder?"
This shows how off base you are. It isn't about the AOPA "playing members like a fiddle", it's all about GA pilots looking at the big picture and clearly seeing what will follow. The airlines are doing nothing about THEIR scheduling in regards to congestion but think getting more money from those not involved is going to fix the problem. Then the footprint arguement is raised that actually opens up the can for more things unrelated to GA.
I think those for the user fees are being played like a fiddle. Just like converting the angry man in jail to a muslim is easy, I think converting a bitter airline pilot to be for these crazy GA user fees is along the same lines. You guys are both angry and shut out everything else (no matter how logical it is) for your own causes. New slogan = GA user fees, by any means necessary LOL.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I like your idea as it reduces the tax burden on the airlines, but as you say, the slack on the taxes has to come from somewhere. Removing roughly $3-5 billion in tax revenue from ticket fees and taxes means that those taxes will have to come from elsewhere. That's why user fees for corporate aviation are the preferred solution from the ATA, because it solves the problem of reducing the airlines' tax burden while at the same time replacing that tax revenue by shifting it to the corporate operators who aren't paying their fair share. (Yes, I'm sorry Steve, but I don't believe the corporate operators are paying anything close to their fair share.)
That's simply a result of deregulation in an industry that should be regulated. Again, not the fault of the airlines. If a legacy went out of business (let's say UAL for example) and their hubs all closed down, what do you think would happen? Another carrier would jump right in and open up new hubs in ORD, SFO, and IAD to fill the void to capture that market share. There is no end to this cycle, people! Competition and capacity will never be reduced in a deregulated industry. Free-market capitalism is a doomed endeavor in the airline business.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You continue to use the term "GA" which has nothing to do with this. User fees are being proposed for corporate aviation, not true GA.
Sprint100
Well-Known Member
It wont stop at the corporate level. Just like any other law translated for a lawsuit, these fees will eventually get extended into GA.
Don't get me wrong, I was for user fees for a while. But then I noticed how easy it can spread to the ma and pa and average joe flying.