User Fees a good thing?

[ppragman]

........ and the solution to that would be charging a fee to file a VFR flight plan in Kansas, tack on a filing fee for a student pilot certificate in Wyoming, and the other user fees that have been proposed as opposed to a gate hold.

That's accidents waiting to happen. This isn't Europe, you aren't always talking to someone, there are times when you can go hours without talking to anyone and still be legal. If you start charging for people to file a flight plan, people won't file a flight plan, and then when they crash, they won't have any way for them to be rescued.

That I would actually like to see.

This last hireing boom saw the regional airlines holding fast on pay, but they were forced to scrape the bottom of the experiance barrell to get warm bodies to sit in the right seat. Pilots with 1500TT would not be as likely to tollerate the pathetic 1st year pay that the regionals offer, they would have other options like 135 or corprate.

Bingo. As long as you can get into a jet at 250TT, people will do it, because people want to be jetpilots. Even look at the name of this site. It's jetcareers, not flyingjobs, or aviationcareers, or pilotcareers. Jets are glamorous, and people want to fly them. Increase the mins required to hire copilots at regionals and you'll see pay rise. An extra 1250TT isn't a bad thing. In fact, I think we'd have better crews in the cockpit than people who have gone straight from commercial checkride to airline groundschool, no offense to those people, but everything doesn't have to happen at lightning pace, and sometimes a little experience might be better.

IMHO, user fees are a terrible idea. This country depends on general aviation in a lot more ways than most people realize. Think medevac, feight feeder, cargo, flight instruction and more. Think of all of the jobs GA creates in this country. It doesn't just include pilots, there are pilots, mechanics, rampers, fuelers, aircraft cleaners, flight attendants, box throwers and more who are directly connected with day-to-day operations and flights. Tack on the extra jobs and industry created by everyone else involved in general aviation (e.g. engineers, heavy equipment operators, delivery drivers, etc.) and the value of user fees begins to look pretty piss-poor.

The airline pilots here tend to think that they are the only ones out there using this system, when in fact that's not even barely the case. I went through the Airline Pilot Central pages for airlines, and systematically added up all of the pilot jobs that were in the Legacy, Major-National-LCC, and Regional section (to include total pilots, not just ones who weren't on furlough) then I went through cargo, and charter and added all of the airlines I didn't think were GA (e.g. FedEx, Polar, Atlas, UPS, Omni, Kalitta, ABX, etc) and the number popped out of Excel at:

88,794

That is the total number employed by all of the non-GA carriers, I figure with a margin of error of about 5000 or so for good measure.

Now, go over to wikipedia, and follow the link to the AOPA pilot certification statistics and here's what ya get:

• 130,234 commercial pilots
• 144,681 airline transport pilot
• 274,915 employable pilots (the last bullet is mine)

Now if only 60% of these guys have jobs (which is probably a gross underestimate) then there are 164,949 pilots employed in general. That means that roughly 53% of employed pilots are airline pilots. What do you guys think about the other 47% of people who will more than likely have their work negatively affected by user fees.

Who will suffer from user fees:

CFIs (fewer students)
135 cargo/charter guys (good chance the prices will go up too much and become inefficient for many cargo and charter operators, who in turn may go out of business)
Aerial Photo Guys
Alaska pilots supplying food and fuel to the vills
Ag Pilots (if you have to pay $50 to land at tracy airport you may be in trouble)
Banner Towwers (sp?)
Skydiving operations (50 takeoffs and landings per day, ouch)

but the biggest group to suffer will be:

The American Airline Pilots.

Why? Where are the airlines going to get qualified applicants if half of the flight schools go out of business? The military doesn't train an adequate amount of pilots to make up the slack, and its not exactly like the American carriers are making money hand-over-fist to pay for people to get trained (e.g. Ab Initio gigs like in europe or asia). The only people who will be able to afford flight training will be the super rich, or if not the super rich, then the exceedingly motivated. With a shortage, the airlines don't want to pay people more, so they will work the pilots they have more. There are people who aren't even close to hitting their guarantee at companies, guess what, they'll be flying at exactly their guarantee every month? Then, consider the quality of FOs that are going to be working their way in. Right now, as mentioned above, a sort of natural selection is at play, weeding out those who suck.

If there aren't enough pilots, the standards will drop, just like they did at airline hiring minimums, except there's always the possibility they could lower PTS mins to compensate. Look at the level of flight training done in Europe, the practical test standards to get JAA certs are much lower than here in the states, though the writtens are hell. Look it up. As far as I can see, I don't want anything to do with user fees. Its kind of ridiculous that the idea is even being bantered around. How many people here could have afforded to learn to fly if userfees were in effect? Velo maybe (good ole uncle sam) but not too many others. Think that over a bit. How many people am I willing to screw to bump my paycheck up a couple thousand bucks per year? How many?

 

[PeterPilot]

That's accidents waiting to happen. This isn't Europe, you aren't always talking to someone, there are times when you can go hours without talking to anyone and still be legal. If you start charging for people to file a flight plan, people won't file a flight plan, and then when they crash, they won't have any way for them to be rescued.

Yes. That's the point. It has been said very strongly by AOPA and other aviation advocacy groups for a long time. Nonetheless, those are just a couple of the many user fee proposals that sit waiting for the "wrong" administration to allow their implementation.

 

[mshunter]

According to AOPA claims GA in the US carries more passengers in the US than any one airline. Much less efficiently too. So, why should airlines pay for traffic jams caused by GA?

Are you serious? Name the last time you witnessed a C-150 land at LGA/LAX/IAH/ORD, on an IFR flight plan at that. Get real man. All the jam ups are because there is too many COMMERCIAL airplanes and not enough runways to land them on. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much space there is in the sky. It has everything to do with how much space is on the ground. Do some better research next time.

 

[mshunter]

That's accidents waiting to happen. This isn't Europe, you aren't always talking to someone, there are times when you can go hours without talking to anyone and still be legal. If you start charging for people to file a flight plan, people won't file a flight plan, and then when they crash, they won't have any way for them to be rescued.



Bingo. As long as you can get into a jet at 250TT, people will do it, because people want to be jetpilots. Even look at the name of this site. It's jetcareers, not flyingjobs, or aviationcareers, or pilotcareers. Jets are glamorous, and people want to fly them. Increase the mins required to hire copilots at regionals and you'll see pay rise. An extra 1250TT isn't a bad thing. In fact, I think we'd have better crews in the cockpit than people who have gone straight from commercial checkride to airline groundschool, no offense to those people, but everything doesn't have to happen at lightning pace, and sometimes a little experience might be better.

IMHO, user fees are a terrible idea. This country depends on general aviation in a lot more ways than most people realize. Think medevac, feight feeder, cargo, flight instruction and more. Think of all of the jobs GA creates in this country. It doesn't just include pilots, there are pilots, mechanics, rampers, fuelers, aircraft cleaners, flight attendants, box throwers and more who are directly connected with day-to-day operations and flights. Tack on the extra jobs and industry created by everyone else involved in general aviation (e.g. engineers, heavy equipment operators, delivery drivers, etc.) and the value of user fees begins to look pretty piss-poor.

The airline pilots here tend to think that they are the only ones out there using this system, when in fact that's not even barely the case. I went through the Airline Pilot Central pages for airlines, and systematically added up all of the pilot jobs that were in the Legacy, Major-National-LCC, and Regional section (to include total pilots, not just ones who weren't on furlough) then I went through cargo, and charter and added all of the airlines I didn't think were GA (e.g. FedEx, Polar, Atlas, UPS, Omni, Kalitta, ABX, etc) and the number popped out of Excel at:

88,794

That is the total number employed by all of the non-GA carriers, I figure with a margin of error of about 5000 or so for good measure.

Now, go over to wikipedia, and follow the link to the AOPA pilot certification statistics and here's what ya get:

• 130,234 commercial pilots
• 144,681 airline transport pilot
• 274,915 employable pilots (the last bullet is mine)

Now if only 60% of these guys have jobs (which is probably a gross underestimate) then there are 164,949 pilots employed in general. That means that roughly 53% of employed pilots are airline pilots. What do you guys think about the other 47% of people who will more than likely have their work negatively affected by user fees.

Who will suffer from user fees:

CFIs (fewer students)
135 cargo/charter guys (good chance the prices will go up too much and become inefficient for many cargo and charter operators, who in turn may go out of business)
Aerial Photo Guys
Alaska pilots supplying food and fuel to the vills
Ag Pilots (if you have to pay $50 to land at tracy airport you may be in trouble)
Banner Towwers (sp?)
Skydiving operations (50 takeoffs and landings per day, ouch)

but the biggest group to suffer will be:

The American Airline Pilots.

Why? Where are the airlines going to get qualified applicants if half of the flight schools go out of business? The military doesn't train an adequate amount of pilots to make up the slack, and its not exactly like the American carriers are making money hand-over-fist to pay for people to get trained (e.g. Ab Initio gigs like in europe or asia). The only people who will be able to afford flight training will be the super rich, or if not the super rich, then the exceedingly motivated. With a shortage, the airlines don't want to pay people more, so they will work the pilots they have more. There are people who aren't even close to hitting their guarantee at companies, guess what, they'll be flying at exactly their guarantee every month? Then, consider the quality of FOs that are going to be working their way in. Right now, as mentioned above, a sort of natural selection is at play, weeding out those who suck.

If there aren't enough pilots, the standards will drop, just like they did at airline hiring minimums, except there's always the possibility they could lower PTS mins to compensate. Look at the level of flight training done in Europe, the practical test standards to get JAA certs are much lower than here in the states, though the writtens are hell. Look it up. As far as I can see, I don't want anything to do with user fees. Its kind of ridiculous that the idea is even being bantered around. How many people here could have afforded to learn to fly if userfees were in effect? Velo maybe (good ole uncle sam) but not too many others. Think that over a bit. How many people am I willing to screw to bump my paycheck up a couple thousand bucks per year? How many?

pprag, you are once again, my hero! :nana2:

 

[Socal321]

Bingo. As long as you can get into a jet at 250TT, people will do it, because people want to be jetpilots. Even look at the name of this site. It's jetcareers, not flyingjobs, or aviationcareers, or pilotcareers. Jets are glamorous, and people want to fly them. Increase the mins required to hire copilots at regionals and you'll see pay rise. An extra 1250TT isn't a bad thing. In fact, I think we'd have better crews in the cockpit than people who have gone straight from commercial checkride to airline groundschool, no offense to those people, but everything doesn't have to happen at lightning pace, and sometimes a little experience might be better.

It's a catch 22 though and it has never worked that way at the airlines. People think that flight time matters a whole lot to the airlines, it doesn't it's that particular pilot market that is more important. What happens at the regionals when you put in 1200 mins during normal economic times is that no one will show up for class because no 1200 hour guy would be willing to fly at a regional making poverty pay. What airlines do to attract pilots is to go the opposite way of normal businesses practice which is to lower requirements. Airlines will never use pay as a way of getting more people in because it's fixed by the unions anyways but it's all done by lowering mins.

There was a big shortage of pilots the last few years, did pay go up? No. We're stuck in this cycle unless there's a real shortage from the training ranks because even if the mins go to 200, you won't have anybody to fly. It might sound kind of selfish to people looking to start training or maybe are not pilots but we are all seeing how low this industry has gone and it's partly due to the fact that flying is too accessible so if you have good credit and some basic motor skills you too can become a pilot. It should be a lot harder so that the process of weeding out will be more stringent. I mean I've seen pro pilots that are currently flying passengers that should probably never be even allowed near an airport. It's a good thing CRJs and ERJs fly themselves. The current system is not doing a good job of weeding out pilots.

 

[Velocipede]

Wrong, not just wrong, but galactically wrong.

Wow! Glad you're the arbitrer of truth, justice and the American way.

EVERY single guy on these boards that champions ALPA as the end all be all for pilots plays the same double standard.

Love rampant generalization!

User fees will cause a significant drop in the quality of applicants because instead of relying on natural selection to trim the fat we'll have to just hope and pray that the ones who can afford to have their flight training paid for aren't three-towed jerkweeds.

Or maybe, just maybe, we can start training civilian pilots like we train military pilots. Stringent screening followed by strictly standardized flight training.

Sort of like Lufthansa has been doing in Arizona for about 50 years. User fees could just send outfits like "Joe's Flight School" to the ashcan of history.

Apparently the door only swings both ways if you get one of those sweet lanyards.

Wow! Anti-Union and anti-standardization in ONE sentence.

You know the Germans make good stuff...

I know you were being sarcastic, but perhaps there's truth underneath the attempt at humor. Lufthansa has a pretty good safety record with MPL pilots.

IMHO, user fees are a terrible idea. This country depends on general aviation in a lot more ways than most people realize.

But, you have the unique experience of village flying. You can't really extrapolate that to the rest of the country.

The airline pilots here tend to think that they are the only ones out there using this system, when in fact that's not even barely the case.

But, if the goal is to reduce the stress on the NAS, user fees are the way to go.

Now, go over to wikipedia, and follow the link to the AOPA pilot certification statistics and here's what ya get:

Yeah, wikipedia. Where anyone with an account can add or delete any information from an entry. Better not bet the mortgage on a wikipedia entry.

Alaska pilots supplying food and fuel to the vills

Admit it, Pat. Here's your agenda.

The American Airline Pilots.

Horsehockey. Supply and demand. Simple economics.

Where are the airlines going to get qualified applicants if half of the flight schools go out of business? The military doesn't train an adequate amount of pilots to make up the slack, and its not exactly like the American carriers are making money hand-over-fist to pay for people to get trained (e.g. Ab Initio gigs like in europe or asia).

Again, use the Lufthansa model. Perhaps a pool training arrangement?

 

[Socal321]

Again, use the Lufthansa model. Perhaps a pool training arrangement?

That might not work in the states because there are plenty of pilots available. And if it ever comes to a point where ab initio is required to get warm bodies, it would mean that no one would be willing to fly anyways because of low qol. Even if they were being trained from scratch by the airline which they would undoubtedly have to sell their soul for a couple of years worth of training contracts...

 

[esa17]

Love rampant generalization!

I know, you use it all the time.

Or maybe, just maybe, we can start training civilian pilots like we train military pilots. Stringent screening followed by strictly standardized flight training.

Sort of like Lufthansa has been doing in Arizona for about 50 years. User fees could just send outfits like "Joe's Flight School" to the ashcan of history.

So you're in favor of further increasing the cost of flight training, making management foot the bill, and the lowering of ALL wages to compensate?

Speaking of rampant generalization: In my experience with academies and FBOs is that a higher quality aviator comes out of "Joe's Flight School". Academies just make ipod wearing spiky haired gear jerkers. There is a huge difference between a commercial pilot who regularly flies trips hundreds of miles away and a 250hr ink wet CFII.

Wow! Anti-Union and anti-standardization in ONE sentence.

Nothing was said about standardization. Don't we all use the same PTS? Don't the airlines provide ground school and IOE? I didn't realize they changed that, thanks for the update.

But, you have the unique experience of village flying. You can't really extrapolate that to the rest of the country.

Actually you can, it's just more extreme. User fee's will choke Alaska since the only really reliable method of travel is by air. Maybe thats why the Alaska exception language was placed in the last bill.

Horsehockey. Supply and demand. Simple economics.

Yay for rampant generalization.


User fees are bad mmkay, period. After visiting countries and having students from all over the world who are hampered by them I can difinitively say that.

 

[skydog]

That's accidents waiting to happen. This isn't Europe, you aren't always talking to someone, there are times when you can go hours without talking to anyone and still be legal. If you start charging for people to file a flight plan, people won't file a flight plan, and then when they crash, they won't have any way for them to be rescued.



Bingo. As long as you can get into a jet at 250TT, people will do it, because people want to be jetpilots. Even look at the name of this site. It's jetcareers, not flyingjobs, or aviationcareers, or pilotcareers. Jets are glamorous, and people want to fly them. Increase the mins required to hire copilots at regionals and you'll see pay rise. An extra 1250TT isn't a bad thing. In fact, I think we'd have better crews in the cockpit than people who have gone straight from commercial checkride to airline groundschool, no offense to those people, but everything doesn't have to happen at lightning pace, and sometimes a little experience might be better.

IMHO, user fees are a terrible idea. This country depends on general aviation in a lot more ways than most people realize. Think medevac, feight feeder, cargo, flight instruction and more. Think of all of the jobs GA creates in this country. It doesn't just include pilots, there are pilots, mechanics, rampers, fuelers, aircraft cleaners, flight attendants, box throwers and more who are directly connected with day-to-day operations and flights. Tack on the extra jobs and industry created by everyone else involved in general aviation (e.g. engineers, heavy equipment operators, delivery drivers, etc.) and the value of user fees begins to look pretty piss-poor.

The airline pilots here tend to think that they are the only ones out there using this system, when in fact that's not even barely the case. I went through the Airline Pilot Central pages for airlines, and systematically added up all of the pilot jobs that were in the Legacy, Major-National-LCC, and Regional section (to include total pilots, not just ones who weren't on furlough) then I went through cargo, and charter and added all of the airlines I didn't think were GA (e.g. FedEx, Polar, Atlas, UPS, Omni, Kalitta, ABX, etc) and the number popped out of Excel at:

88,794

That is the total number employed by all of the non-GA carriers, I figure with a margin of error of about 5000 or so for good measure.

Now, go over to wikipedia, and follow the link to the AOPA pilot certification statistics and here's what ya get:

• 130,234 commercial pilots
• 144,681 airline transport pilot
• 274,915 employable pilots (the last bullet is mine)

Now if only 60% of these guys have jobs (which is probably a gross underestimate) then there are 164,949 pilots employed in general. That means that roughly 53% of employed pilots are airline pilots. What do you guys think about the other 47% of people who will more than likely have their work negatively affected by user fees.

Who will suffer from user fees:

CFIs (fewer students)
135 cargo/charter guys (good chance the prices will go up too much and become inefficient for many cargo and charter operators, who in turn may go out of business)
Aerial Photo Guys
Alaska pilots supplying food and fuel to the vills
Ag Pilots (if you have to pay $50 to land at tracy airport you may be in trouble)
Banner Towwers (sp?)
Skydiving operations (50 takeoffs and landings per day, ouch)

but the biggest group to suffer will be:

The American Airline Pilots.

Why? Where are the airlines going to get qualified applicants if half of the flight schools go out of business? The military doesn't train an adequate amount of pilots to make up the slack, and its not exactly like the American carriers are making money hand-over-fist to pay for people to get trained (e.g. Ab Initio gigs like in europe or asia). The only people who will be able to afford flight training will be the super rich, or if not the super rich, then the exceedingly motivated. With a shortage, the airlines don't want to pay people more, so they will work the pilots they have more. There are people who aren't even close to hitting their guarantee at companies, guess what, they'll be flying at exactly their guarantee every month? Then, consider the quality of FOs that are going to be working their way in. Right now, as mentioned above, a sort of natural selection is at play, weeding out those who suck.

If there aren't enough pilots, the standards will drop, just like they did at airline hiring minimums, except there's always the possibility they could lower PTS mins to compensate. Look at the level of flight training done in Europe, the practical test standards to get JAA certs are much lower than here in the states, though the writtens are hell. Look it up. As far as I can see, I don't want anything to do with user fees. Its kind of ridiculous that the idea is even being bantered around. How many people here could have afforded to learn to fly if userfees were in effect? Velo maybe (good ole uncle sam) but not too many others. Think that over a bit. How many people am I willing to screw to bump my paycheck up a couple thousand bucks per year? How many?

Now this is one of the best arguments against user fees I have ever heard. I'm ashamed it did not occur to me. Young gentleman speaks wisdom. User fees, also known as taxes, will also drive up the cost of doing business of many small operators. Given the thin margins of profit that aviation operations have, it seems likely many of these operators would close down. So in addition to the the undetermined amount of people who would be deterred from aviation, there would be job loss in the aviation sector. Supply of pilots would decrease, but so would demand. No increase in pilot wages. Nothing exists in a vaccuum

I was in favor of user fees. It can officially be said that my position has changed. Nicely done!

 

[Roger, Roger]

User fees, also known as taxes, will also drive up the cost of doing business of many small operators. Given the thin margins of profit that aviation operations have, it seems likely many of these operators would close down.

So you're saying more taxation and government interference is NOT the solution to all our problems?

That's crazy talk!

 

[ppragman]

...

Or maybe, just maybe, we can start training civilian pilots like we train military pilots. Stringent screening followed by strictly standardized flight training.

You get what you pay for, and guess what, it costs about $1.2 million to train new pilots in the military. I doubt that'd be a good idea.

Sort of like Lufthansa has been doing in Arizona for about 50 years. User fees could just send outfits like "Joe's Flight School" to the ashcan of history.

Joe's Flight School is as reputable as any other Flight School out there, and the owners are trying to make a living like everyone else. You have absolutely no credible experience with General Aviation, and you act like every single GA company is a blight on the existence of aviation. Everything has its place. Shoving poor Joe out of his flight school means he can't afford to send his kids to college which hurts you in the long run (uninformed masses leading the vote).

...
But, you have the unique experience of village flying. You can't really extrapolate that to the rest of the country.

You do realize that I have lived outside of Alaska right? Although, the fees would probably hurt up here the most. I'm not a dew eyed innocent typing this from my traditional yuurt, I've seen the outside world, and I understand that people would suffer because of these additions.

But, if the goal is to reduce the stress on the NAS, user fees are the way to go.

Find me some statistics on this, don't just state these things if we're trying ot avoid broad sweeping generalities. Why are user fees the way to go? And "because my paycheck will get bigger," is not a valid answer (indeed I thought I just showed that wasn't true above). If that is the case why would NASA and the FAA be looking at SATS. And why is it that you always hear of Airport delays around the holidays from log-jammed airliners? The stress on the NAS is airline-induced.

Yeah, wikipedia. Where anyone with an account can add or delete any information from an entry. Better not bet the mortgage on a wikipedia entry.

Nice try, I said follow the link to follow to AOPA for a reason.

Admit it, Pat. Here's your agenda.

I don't have an agenda provided my paycheck keeps clearing, something that you'd rather not have happen it seems.

Horsehockey. Supply and demand. Simple economics.

Are you kidding me? Elaborate, explain. I'd expect more out of you man. "Simple" is just a word used in internet forums when you want to make your opponent think he's stupid without attaching any facts to back up your claim. Go online, look up what has happened to pilot wages as a function of QoL in Europe since the implementation of a fee based system. Give me data to work with. If you can provide me with information supporting your wild claims, rather than anecdotal half-truths and rampant generalizations (you know, the kind you came out against earlier in the post) I'd be more than happy to modify, or even out right change my opinion on these things. But that's not something you do is it?

Again, use the Lufthansa model. Perhaps a pool training arrangement?

If you think that QoL at the regionals is bad now, wait until you have to live in indentured servitude for your airline for 3 years before you have any say what-so-ever in where your career goes.

Just my $.02.

 

[Joe Gremlin]

Would be bad news for the typical weekend warrior. But for professional pilots I believe this would be a good thing.

Careful what you wish for. Especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[wzgrza]

Careful what you wish for. Especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.

The question here is, what are YOU talking about?

And before you respond, take care not to put words in my mouth.

 

[ctab5060X]

Who will suffer from user fees:

CFIs (fewer students)
135 cargo/charter guys (good chance the prices will go up too much and become inefficient for many cargo and charter operators, who in turn may go out of business)
Aerial Photo Guys
Alaska pilots supplying food and fuel to the vills
Ag Pilots (if you have to pay $50 to land at tracy airport you may be in trouble)
Banner Towwers (sp?)
Skydiving operations (50 takeoffs and landings per day, ouch)

but the biggest group to suffer will be:

The American Airline Pilots.

First off, excellent post and argument!


I would like to add a little bit here that most people on this forum probably would not even think about. The biggest group of people to suffer from user fees... not any group of pilots, but the American people as a whole (and that is just a start). Notice what of the original group I put in bold. That's right, Ag pilots.

How many of you ate breakfast, lunch, or dinner today? If you are alive, chances are pretty good you did eat at sometime. Good price? Reasonable price? How would you like that to double or even triple? If user fees go into effect, that is probably one of the biggest consequences that people haven't even thought about. How good is that nice big paycheck going to be if you are having to budget two to three times as much money just for food? While they only make up a small number compared to other sections of the aviation industry, user fees on this small segment stand to lower the quality of life for all Americans.


"Enjoy your lunch? Thank an Ag pilot."

 

[Joe Gremlin]

The question here is, what are YOU talking about?

And before you respond, take care not to put words in my mouth.

It's pretty simple really. You say that you believe user fees would be good for airline pilots. I believe you are wrong. I believe they will only make things worse for all involved. No word insertion required.

 

[Velocipede]

A lot of ag pilots dusting IFR? OR in terminal airspace? How's that work anyway?

Ipso facto, an irrelevant argument.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

Sort of like Lufthansa has been doing in Arizona for about 50 years. User fees could just send outfits like "Joe's Flight School" to the ashcan of history.

...And Lufthansa training to the ashcan!

Look where Lufthansa is doing it, Arizona, which is in the US and has no user fees. This probably saves them money because if they had the initial training in Europe they would have to pay user fees.

So you could say that if the US has user fees they would stop training in the US and have all training be done in Germany. Because of this they are then charged user fees and try to push all pilots quickly as possible through training so they do not have to pay the user fees. Thus quality of pilots would go down. Or they could kick pilots out not making the cut and end up having a hard time finding pilots that could make it through the accelerated training.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

A lot of ag pilots dusting IFR? OR in terminal airspace? How's that work anyway?

Ipso facto, an irrelevant argument.

Not if they impose landing fees at all airports...

 

[Velocipede]

Do some reading on the subject. They aren't proposing landing fees at ALL airports. SHEESH!

 

[Cessnaflyer]

Do some reading on the subject. They aren't proposing landing fees at ALL airports. SHEESH!

I have done some reading on it and it is just a matter of time where this could happen.

Plus, I bet GEG would be on the list for fees and that would probably keep me on the ground!