User Fees a good thing?

[Hacker15e]

But every taxpayer monetarily supports the military, and I think that was the point of that statement.

No, the point of the post was somehow that military trained pilots owed some sort of a debt of gratitude to the taxpayer for the training they've recieved.

Really?

The person who volunteers for military service...owes gratitude...to the taxpayer?

Sorry, but I raised my hand to serve in the military long before I ever received a cent's worth of flying training. I signed that check TO the American taxpayer (you know...the one that goes something like "up to and including the value of my life") before I got any single bit of anything paid for by the American taxpayer. I did that with no guarantee of anything. Remember, that's why they call it "the service".

I am a military officer first. Pilot just happens to be my vocation -- the one that the USAF trained me to do. The cost of that training and where the money came from is completely irrelevant.

Would you walk up to an Iraq or Afghanistan vet, and say, "as a taxpayer, you should be GLAD that I paid for you to have a helmet, body armor, and a rifle"?

If it wasn't for tax payers, the military would have no pay check to pay taxes with.

And what exactly is this supposed to mean? Does it mean that I am some kind of indentured servant to you because you are an American taxpayer? Does it mean that you are an owner of military hardware, and should have some right to use it?

It means nothing, other than as an American taxpayer you are participating in funding EVERY ASPECT of American government. The military just happens to be one aspect of that.

 

[mshunter]

I'm talking first year street Captain pay...

And the reason for this is because aviation in those countries is ou of reach for most but the wealthy. Not rich, but wealthy. If you wanted to make millions and represent your industry poorly, you should have gone to work for AIG as an executive.

Exactly. For all the FLAPs here who are convinced user fees will kill aviation, consider this:

Yes, it will cost more for you to fire up the old Piper Cub and go for a $100 burger. But, you'll figure out a way to pay for it.

The flight schools will pass the fees on to the students.

The Bizjet boys' bosses will cough up the extra cash.

The sky will not fall.

And the sun will rise and set on schedule.

What a bunch of nattering nannys.

Enough with the FLAPS and bug smasher stuff. Then again, this just proves the ignorance you continue to portray. So you have problems at SAN huh? And it's always the GA guys you say? So place resstrictions on SAN like there is at LAX. No touch and go ops. And get some better bravo trasnitions, or controlers who are more strict with the small GA guys who fly through the bravo out there. There is very few instances here in the LA area where pilots have near misses, because the controlers don't tollerate it. If you not going into torance, or not in a transition, YOUR NOT ALLOWED IN. Seems like a way around user fee's to me.

Seems to me like the only reason you want user fee's is to run a military style society. We are a free nation (thanks to the military), and I refuse to take orders on how to live my life. If you want to fly in a user fee society, leave. Go live in Europe or Australia, where GA is dead. That will fix your problems (better pay and no GA to contend with), and fix our problems (no more listening to you complain about how we all suck, and hearing how you are just soooooooo awsome).

 

[mshunter]

No, the point of the post was somehow that military trained pilots owed some sort of a debt of gratitude to the taxpayer for the training they've recieved.

It's a you scratch my back, and I'll scratch your back thing.

I say "Thank you for keeping us safe"

You say "Thank you for letting me keep you safe."

Really?

The person who volunteers for military service...owes gratitude...to the taxpayer?

Not gratitude, but without taxpayers, there would be no military. Don't take it out of context.

Sorry, but I raised my hand to serve in the military long before I ever received a cent's worth of flying training. I signed that check TO the American taxpayer (you know...the one that goes something like "up to and including the value of my life") before I got any single bit of anything paid for by the American taxpayer. I did that with no guarantee of anything. Remember, that's why they call it "the service".

I am a military officer first. Pilot just happens to be my vocation -- the one that the USAF trained me to do. The cost of that training and where the money came from is completely irrelevant.

Would you walk up to an Iraq or Afghanistan vet, and say, "as a taxpayer, you should be GLAD that I paid for you to have a helmet, body armor, and a rifle"?

Again, out of context. I am very proud of our military for fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. And I am happy to help pay for it as well. But the money for that doesn't just magiacly appear.

And what exactly is this supposed to mean? Does it mean that I am some kind of indentured servant to you because you are an American taxpayer? Does it mean that you are an owner of military hardware, and should have some right to use it?

What would you consider you job in the military then? Servitude? I thought you said you were in the service? I also thought being a servant meant you coulden't just walk away? Walking away from the military is called A-wall isn't it? And woulden't you be put in the brigg? Don't take that the wrong way. But you are serving in the military. And I look up to that. I coulden't bring myself to it when I was young enough. You are one step up the ladder than I am in my book. But you are serving your country. I don't expect you to bring me my slippers, but I do expect you to perform the service you signed up for.

As for owning the military hardware, actually, I am a part owner. I may not have the keys to it, or even acess to it, but the F-15 you fly isn't yours, it's not the Navy's, or the Marines, or the Airforces, or the ANG's, etc. It's the taxpayers.

It means nothing, other than as an American taxpayer you are participating in funding EVERY ASPECT of American government. The military just happens to be one aspect of that.

I have no problems paying for any of it. It's part of being a free country. And I am happy to pay for my freedom. But why should I pay for it twice with user fee's? Jack uo the aviation fuel tax, AND MAKE THE AIRLINES PAY IT TOO!

The airlines should have to pay for use as well.

Sorry, I'm not to computer savy, read between the lines.

 

[Hacker15e]

That's all fine, but none of it is relevant to the original comment that de-railed this little part of the thread:

BTW, WE PAID FOR YOUR FLIGHT TRAINING IF YOU GOT IT IN THE MILITARY (tax payers). YOU SHOULD BE THANKFULL, NOT POMPAS!

...and that is what I was responding to.

On to the main thread topic, I'm personally against user fees for GA for purely personal reasons. I do a good bit of GA flying, and it costs me enough out of pocket as is -- I don't want to pay any more than I have to.

 

[PW127F]

And the reason for this is because aviation in those countries is ou of reach for most but the wealthy. Not rich, but wealthy. If you wanted to make millions and represent your industry poorly, you should have gone to work for AIG as an executive.



That is not the case lots of people from every day walks of life become pilots in Europe, you could before the down to turn go to a high street bank and obtain a loan.

Here are a few examples of people I know from everyday walks of life that now fly the big iron: -


Police officer

Plumber

Photocopy repair guy

Along with many people who left high school and pursued their dream of wanting to become a pilot with a professional study s loan.

I don't know of any airline in Europe that pays a flight crew member Mc Donalds wages - it is laughable what the regional airlines pay in the US.

They need to make your training harder, more well respected and maybe cost a little more - to adjust the market forces you have in play.

Also don't fall into the camp that European pilots get paid more but it costs more to live there... Yes it does but not to the extent that you guys make out.

Pilots in Europe choose where they want to fly (regional / mainline) based on the type of flying they wish to do - not based on money flying for a regional is a career not a stepping stone and you are paid as a professional inline with what you would get flying long haul.

 

[PW127F]

Street captains like the one at colgan that everyone is saying is F'd up?

That is a matter of opinion, personally I don't see anything wrong with it.

If an airline wishes to higher externally because it feels it can obtain a better candidate for the job then so what?

In many ways it is a good thing for all if it was offered more widely... as people could freely move from one carrier to the next.. Without being held by the balls in seniority.

Much like how things are in Europe with DEC's :rawk:

 

[MQAAord]

Would you walk up to an Iraq or Afghanistan vet, and say, "as a taxpayer, you should be GLAD that I paid for you to have a helmet, body armor, and a rifle"?

Huh?

You think I'd say that to someone serving in our military?

You are taking what I said WWWWAAAAAYYYYY to far.

I said that every taxpayer (every taxpayer) monetarily supports the military. That is not me saying that any serviceperson owes me a "debt" of anything. They don't. That was a statement of fact about where part of our taxes go. Nothing more.

My grandpa drove a tank onto Omaha beach on D-Day. My dad worked on F-4s in Vietnam. Do not think that I have anything but absolute highest regard for all our servicepeople.

/derailment..... but I wanted to clear up ANY confusion that I would ever say something like that to any of our servicepeople.

 

[MQAAord]

Exactly. For all the FLAPs here who are convinced user fees will kill aviation, consider this:

Yes, it will cost more for you to fire up the old Piper Cub and go for a $100 burger. But, you'll figure out a way to pay for it.

The flight schools will pass the fees on to the students.

The Bizjet boys' bosses will cough up the extra cash.

The sky will not fall.

And the sun will rise and set on schedule.

What a bunch of nattering nannys.

:banghead:

Again, Velo.... what you're trying to say is really lost with your "FLAPS", "Bugsmashers", and "nattering nannys" comments. I wish you could understand how you're totally closing people's ears to any point you're trying to make with comments & attitude like that.

 

[meritflyer]

I would rather see airline pilots take another 20% pay cut long before user fees.

 

[Goonie]

FLAPs?

Really?

Its not even that clever.

 

[ctab5060X]

Exactly. For all the FLAPs here who are convinced user fees will kill aviation, consider this:

Yes, it will cost more for you to fire up the old Piper Cub and go for a $100 burger. But, you'll figure out a way to pay for it.

The flight schools will pass the fees on to the students.

The Bizjet boys' bosses will cough up the extra cash.

The sky will not fall.

And the sun will rise and set on schedule.

What a bunch of nattering nannys.

Another useless post about FLAPs and how we are all "nattering nannys", but you still haven't answered my question.

Just curious, what would you propose?

 

[ctab5060X]

Save the sarcasm for your family.

It will not affect professional pilots at all, other then possibly lower the amount of newbies willing to get into the industry. This would be a good thing for the professional pilots. See : Supply/Demand.

I did not say I was FOR or AGAINST it. I meerly said that for professional pilots, it might not be a bad thing. But this type of thinking probably goes over your head. I have no more will to argue with you.

FYI, not all professional pilots are airline pilots. There are a lot of professional pilots that user fees will directly effect.

 

[jtrain609]

I think Boris is in preparations for the coming glorious revolution, too.

How's the corporate life treating you?

 

[wzgrza]

FYI, not all professional pilots are airline pilots. There are a lot of professional pilots that user fees will directly effect.

You know what I mean..

 

[ctab5060X]

You know what I mean..

Nope, sorry. Not a mind reader. Guessing this is what you meant?

It will not affect AIRLINE pilots at all, other then possibly lower the amount of newbies willing to get into the industry. This would be a good thing for the AIRLINE pilots. See : Supply/Demand.

I did not say I was FOR or AGAINST it. I meerly said that for AIRLINE pilots, it might not be a bad thing.

 

[wzgrza]

Nope, sorry. Not a mind reader. Guessing this is what you meant?

No that is incorrect. I meant professional pilots flying strictly professionaly. Including smaller GA commercial operators.. I doubt 10-15$ more per flight will put these companies out of buisness, and if it does, they have way bigger problems then just user-fees.

 

[ppragman]

No that is incorrect. I meant professional pilots flying strictly professionaly. Including smaller GA commercial operators.. I doubt 10-15$ more per flight will put these companies out of buisness, and if it does, they have way bigger problems then just user-fees.

How won't it affect me? I'm a professional pilot who happens to currently work in General Aviation? BTW, have you seen the margins for some of these places. -$10 to -$15 dollars = zero profit instead of marginal profit.

 

[ctab5060X]

No that is incorrect. I meant professional pilots flying strictly professionaly. Including smaller GA commercial operators.. I doubt 10-15$ more per flight will put these companies out of buisness, and if it does, they have way bigger problems then just user-fees.

So, $15 per flight x 70 flights a night x 5 days a week... It starts to add up and add up fast. Take a company with a small profit margin and you are talking a large percentage of profit gone to your user-fees.

Any time you reduce the profit margin of a corporation, you are directly affecting the employees of said corporation.

How won't it affect me? I'm a professional pilot who happens to currently work in General Aviation? BTW, have you seen the margins for some of these places. -$10 to -$15 dollars = zero profit instead of marginal profit.

Exactly.

One of two things will happen... either the company will want to pay the pilots less, or the company will close down.

 

[minitour]

F*****g
Little
Airplane
Pilots

Somewhat common among military circles derogatory term used to describe "bug-smashers".

Says a lot right there. You have to give respect to get it.

...and now the ***** thing is okay? I get so confused around here.

You are right about something Velo, I will give you that. The NAS does belong to the PUBLIC.

Yeah, it belongs to the Public...not the airlines.

No one is forcing you to fly your bug smasher out of Boeing Field, Long Beach or Orange County.

Nor is anyone forcing you to fly your boeing out of LAX, ORD, JFK, ATL, etc. Find another airport. Oh, that's where the customers are? Yeah, that's where the boss' business is too. And, I realize you were sitting in line behind a couple of 'bug smashers' or whatever derogatory term you'd like to use, but you'll be happy to know we were 15th in line the other day behind several boeings, a few airbusses (airbi?) and some RJs. Burning Jet-A that we paid taxes on. We weren't sitting there behind 15 Citations, Lears and Globals...it was all airline traffic with one GA plane in the middle. We weren't causing the traffic jam.

If it wasn't for tax payers, the military would have no pay check to pay taxes with.

Excellent point.

And what exactly is this supposed to mean? Does it mean that I am some kind of indentured servant to you because you are an American taxpayer? Does it mean that you are an owner of military hardware, and should have some right to use it?

No. Just means to watch your ankle when you get down off of that high horse. Without tax payer money, you don't have a military to serve in. Without tax payer money, you don't have a paycheck to pay taxes on. Without tax payer money, you don't have an aircraft to "punch out" of, or weapons to protect yourself and uhmurica, you wouldn't have been able to get military flight training.

The sense of superiority displayed by the military pilots around here really leaves a sour taste in my mouth and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. You guys put your pants on one leg at a time just like me.

Get over yourselves.

-mini

 

[Cessnaflyer]

No. Just means to watch your ankle when you get down off of that high horse. Without tax payer money, you don't have a military to serve in. Without tax payer money, you don't have a paycheck to pay taxes on. Without tax payer money, you don't have an aircraft to "punch out" of, or weapons to protect yourself and uhmurica, you wouldn't have been able to get military flight training.

The sense of superiority displayed by the military pilots around here really leaves a sour taste in my mouth and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. You guys put your pants on one leg at a time just like me.

Get over yourselves.

-mini

That's not needed. He said earlier he got ratings flying GA before and continues to fly GA.