User Fees on the table again.

"The fee is aimed at private aircraft, which currently don’t pay their fair share of costs of operating the aviation system,"

And $11 billion over TEN years? Seriously? How the hell is that going to fix anything? 14 trillion in the hole, and he's going to try and raise $11 Billion in 10 years.

So we don't pay our fair share Mr. President? Taxes in fuel, registration and landing fee's don't pay my fair share? Maybe you should start paying YOUR fair share, flying around in your private 747, causing unneeded delays and costly charges for us and other customers. The past vacation to MVY is a good start. How much did it cost to fly all your helicopters, fighter jets and security around? How about you skip MVY and put that money into the Air Traffic system? I'm sure the millions wasted on that golfing vacation could have helped support the FAA\ATC system for a while longer.


I heard all this on the radio the other day, and needless to say it pisses me off. More do as I say, not as I do mentality. I'm sick and tired of this class warfare towards 'rich people' who own private aircraft. Yeah the $20,000 Cherokee I used to fly in, should DEF be slapped with a $100 fee every time I wanna go flying and get FF. Maybe from now on all these private jets should just go VFR and duck under the radar. Lets see how that works out.

edit to add:
mojo6911 said:
If you can afford to fly a corporate jet, you can pay $100 extra.
Click to expand...

Wow, seriously? because every "private aircraft" is a $65 million dollar G550, right?
 
Mark815 said:
"The fee is aimed at private aircraft, which currently don’t pay their fair share of costs of operating the aviation system,"

And $11 billion over TEN years? Seriously? How the hell is that going to fix anything? 14 trillion in the hole, and he's going to try and raise $11 Billion in 10 years.

So we don't pay our fair share Mr. President? Taxes in fuel, registration and landing fee's don't pay my fair share? Maybe you should start paying YOUR fair share, flying around in your private 747, causing unneeded delays and costly charges for us and other customers. The past vacation to MVY is a good start. How much did it cost to fly all your helicopters, fighter jets and security around? How about you skip MVY and put that money into the Air Traffic system?
Click to expand...

I have always half wondered if personal trips by the president that were unrelated to the job role were taxable as fringe benefits. I highly doubt they are, but wondered if there was any legislation that actually exempted the president from taxation like that.
 
Nearly all small private, piston-powered planes wouldn’t have to pay the fee, the proposal said. It would also exempt aircraft operated by the military or other government agencies, air ambulances and any flight that doesn’t require air-traffic guidance.
Click to expand...

Although I'm not generally in favor of user fees given the examples overseas, it's not as bad as some of the posts here suggest. The article didn't exactly proclaim the above quote, leaving it to nearly the last paragraph, but it did note that NetJets is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. As far as divide and conquer, weekend piston fliers and corporate jets are already divided. They use different fuel, they use different airspace -- I have no problem with them paying different fees. The enroute controller who works turbine aircraft at FL350 gets paid a lot more than the tower controller who works primarily weekend warriors in the pattern, and I don't think it's unreasonable to have the high-altitude users pay toward that difference.

I agree that the president's entourage wastes a lot, and I'm in favor of eliminating TFRs, etc. related to that, but 11 billion is 11 billion. We'll never get back in black ink unless we take enough small steps to point the national debt in the other direction. The other main argument against this proposal seems to be that it "leads down the dark path" toward user fees for all general aviation. This proposal specifically excludes the types of aircraft that we're worried about; I don't see why the eventual bill couldn't specifically say no fees will be levied against any pistons, or anyone under a certain gross, or whatever makes sense.
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
The other main argument against this proposal seems to be that it "leads down the dark path" toward user fees for all general aviation. This proposal specifically excludes the types of aircraft that we're worried about; I don't see why the eventual bill couldn't specifically say no fees will be levied against any pistons, or anyone under a certain gross, or whatever makes sense.
Click to expand...

Of course it can be...the problem is that it won't be. People already see GA as a toy for the rich, and won't have any problem extending the fee to all of GA, once someone thinks to bring it up as another way to make the rich pay their fair share. I don't really have a problem adding $100 to a bizjet flight that already costs a few thousand per flight anyway, but it would be a major blow to light GA, if it got that far.
 
mojo6911 said:
If you can afford to fly a corporate jet, you can pay $100 extra.
Click to expand...
...And if airlines want to be "fair" and the government wants more money.......stop paying for EAS and stop giving the airlines tax breaks for adding more flights to "certain" cities.

They always fail to mention that the "corporate jets" are paying billions in property taxes
and 5Xs the fuel taxes. GA JET A = $0.22/gallon the airlines pay $.04/gal. Tell me who needs to pay their fair share.

The National Air Transportation Association's website states that GA jet fuel is being taxed at 21.9 cents per gallon, and aviation gasoline, used for piston aircraft, at 19.4 cpg.

According to the ATA's website, all airlines pay .... a fuel tax of 4.3 cents per gallon.
http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0609012

Lets all pay our "fair share"........by making the airlines pay the same fuel tax as the rest of us.
Or would you prefer to give corp departments tax breaks for basing in certain cities and operating certain routes? (sarcasm).

GRAND RAPIDS -- Members of the board that govern policy at the Gerald R. Ford International Airport agreed Wednesday to waive landing fees for a year, and offer $250,000 for marketing, to Frontier Airlines.
February 25, 2010 - http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/


Dane County Regional Airport in Madison, Wis., won new American Eagle service by guaranteeing the airline $60,000 worth of marketing assistance while waiving the landing fee for six months.

Metropolitan Knoxville Airport won new service from United Airlines by waiving landing fees for up to nine months for airlines starting new service, along with $70,000 worth of marketing.

Port Columbus Airport in Ohio waived landing fees for one year, plus guaranteed $50,000 in marketing assistance for Delta Air Lines Co.

Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport in Michigan waived landing fees for one year and promised $756,000 in revenue guarantees for Atlantic Southeast Airlines..

Ithaca Regional Airport in New York waived landing fees for one year and supplied $90,000 worth of marketing for Northwest Airlines.

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport in Missouri waived landing fees for a year and provided $220,000 in marketing for Allegiant Air L.L.C.

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport in Pennsylvania won service to Boston from Continental Airlines by waiving landing fees for a month and promising free advertising.

Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Ky., waived landing fees for a year on five new flights for American Eagle and promised $100,000 for marketing.

Miami International Airport announced it would waive landing fees for 12 months to airlines starting new service.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/02/13/newscolumn3.html?page=all

Who was it again who wasn't paying their fair share?????? :soapbox:
 
"People" don't vote on bills, congressmen do. People barely vote at all. Write your congressman/send him the link to gaservesamerica.com. I'm sure he has enough constituents that depend on GA business flights.
 
NJA_Capt said:
...And if airlines want to be "fair" and the government wants more money.......stop paying for EAS and stop giving the airlines tax breaks for adding more flights to "certain" cities. Who was it again who wasn't paying their fair share?????? :soapbox:
Click to expand...

No arguments from me there, either.

BeRich said:
Of course it can be...the problem is that it won't be. People already see GA as a toy for the rich, and won't have any problem extending the fee to all of GA, once someone thinks to bring it up as another way to make the rich pay their fair share. I don't really have a problem adding $100 to a bizjet flight that already costs a few thousand per flight anyway, but it would be a major blow to light GA, if it got that far.
Click to expand...

The old slippery slope argument rears its ugly head.
 
user fees will be on the table from now until they are implemented no matter what side of the fence you'rre on
 
NJA_Capt said:
...And if airlines want to be "fair" and the government wants more money.......stop paying for EAS and stop giving the airlines tax breaks for adding more flights to "certain" cities.

*****snipped*****Who was it again who wasn't paying their fair share?????? :soapbox:
Click to expand...


This. One of the most well written posts, that does a great job of explaining whats fair, and whats actually happening. I fly 135. And I personally think that if the government wants GA to pay $100 per flight, thats fine. But the airlines should also have to pay $100 per flight. Listen to who's on the radio next time you fly. I personally am sick and tired of hearing about user fee's. And the majority of the article written are HEAVILY BIASED. There is a lot of mis-representation going on. The current system, isn't broken. If this user fee is coming, I'd like to see exactly where the money will go. I DON'T want to see it get robbed from the system to pay for other programs that the government has in mind.
 
mojo6911 said:
I was going by this:



So, yes.
Click to expand...

And how long until if affects you in the piston single? Do you honestly believe that it won't turn into something disastrous for GA? Even if it begins with $100, how long until it goes up, just like every other government fee? $100 can turn into $150, into $200, into $300 etc etc. heck it could even become $500 for Jets, and $50 for pistons, because hey, in the grand scheme of things, if you can afford to fly a piston single, what's another $50? Right?


NJA_Capt said:
...And if airlines want to be "fair" and the government wants more money.......stop paying for EAS and stop giving the airlines tax breaks for adding more flights to "certain" cities.

They always fail to mention that the "corporate jets" are paying billions in property taxes
and 5Xs the fuel taxes. GA JET A = $0.22/gallon the airlines pay $.04/gal. Tell me who needs to pay their fair share.

The National Air Transportation Association's website states that GA jet fuel is being taxed at 21.9 cents per gallon, and aviation gasoline, used for piston aircraft, at 19.4 cpg.

According to the ATA's website, all airlines pay .... a fuel tax of 4.3 cents per gallon.
http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0609012

Lets all pay our "fair share"........by making the airlines pay the same fuel tax as the rest of us.
Or would you prefer to give corp departments tax breaks for basing in certain cities and operating certain routes? (sarcasm).

GRAND RAPIDS -- Members of the board that govern policy at the Gerald R. Ford International Airport agreed Wednesday to waive landing fees for a year, and offer $250,000 for marketing, to Frontier Airlines.
February 25, 2010 - http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/


Dane County Regional Airport in Madison, Wis., won new American Eagle service by guaranteeing the airline $60,000 worth of marketing assistance while waiving the landing fee for six months.

Metropolitan Knoxville Airport won new service from United Airlines by waiving landing fees for up to nine months for airlines starting new service, along with $70,000 worth of marketing.

Port Columbus Airport in Ohio waived landing fees for one year, plus guaranteed $50,000 in marketing assistance for Delta Air Lines Co.

Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport in Michigan waived landing fees for one year and promised $756,000 in revenue guarantees for Atlantic Southeast Airlines..

Ithaca Regional Airport in New York waived landing fees for one year and supplied $90,000 worth of marketing for Northwest Airlines.

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport in Missouri waived landing fees for a year and provided $220,000 in marketing for Allegiant Air L.L.C.

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport in Pennsylvania won service to Boston from Continental Airlines by waiving landing fees for a month and promising free advertising.

Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Ky., waived landing fees for a year on five new flights for American Eagle and promised $100,000 for marketing.

Miami International Airport announced it would waive landing fees for 12 months to airlines starting new service.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/02/13/newscolumn3.html?page=all

Who was it again who wasn't paying their fair share?????? :soapbox:
Click to expand...



Thank you.

There is so much waste it's not even funny. Before introducing new taxes\fees, lets STOP the waste.

mshunter said:
I DON'T want to see it get robbed from the system to pay for other programs that the government has in mind.
Click to expand...


It'll happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top