General Aviation in America - RIP

If you guessed this was about User Fees, you were right. This may signal the ultimate end of General Aviation in America as we now know it. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FY2008_Budget_User_Fees_194396-1.html.

No surprise here...

This has been anticipated by all the GA organizations for some while now.

Amazing that our government is so willing to turn control of the NAS over to the airlines -- the same airlines that received more than $16 billion in bailout money after 9/11 but now claim that GA needs to pay it's "fair share". The same airlines that include American Airlines, which shelled out $218 million of it's $230 million FY06 profits to it's top 50 executives while non-management employees took more than $1.6 billion in wage concessions.

Yeah...let's turn everything over to airline management. They're VERY RESPONSIBLE with money.

Don't give up just yet. This is far from a done deal and can be fought if we all bug our representatives. Remember, they work for you and are paid with your money. Don't be bashful to write letters, call them up and encourage all your friends and family to do the same.

::: obligitory RV related comments follow :::

If you assume someone else will fight this battle, it will cost a whole heck of a lot more to fly your RV

Let's fight

If you look at the budget you will see what happens with taxes like aviation fuel tax. All of it goes to general revenue same as our social security premiums. There have been Social Security surpluses for years but they just get spent instead of being put in a social security fund. Then the government has guts telling us there is no money in Social Security and because of baby boomers they need to tax us more. I am asking where the premiums are baby boomers have been paying for so many years. I am getting tired of all these new programs (read income redistribution) at the cost of honest hard working people. It is just another tax and we need to stop it now. Not a single representative will remember or want to remember how we pay for our aviation services because they want to spend money on their own programs (read make society dependent on government so they get re-elected based on people fear of loosing services). Please be generous supporting AOPA and EAA in their fight against this proposal. Our failure will cost more in the long run. We need to unite against subsidizing airlines and against loosing control to airlines. If we loose this battle ?God help America? we will be sliding fast in the direction of Germany and France were their governments made large part of population dependent on them effectively supporting them out of fear of loosing services). Our tax code is terrible, full of special privileges for some. It is a shame. Look what happened to aviation in Europe. Ultra light aircraft are most popular and people do not fly IFR.

Maybe I am exaggerating a little bit, yes, I am angry we are becoming a pray.

I will be the first to demonstrate against this in Washington.

Northwest's CEO started this, Jet Blue and Southwest are pushing it too. Try to remember that when buying tickets for those times when you can't fly youself.

The FAA funding debate and user fees
How should the Federal Aviation Administration be funded? Should Congress retain the existing system, which provides funds from excise taxes and from the general fund, or move to an entirely new system of user fees?

The Administration is telling the country that the FAA must have a funding system that ties the agency's revenues to its costs of doing business. To do that, the president is expected to propose a radically different user fee system, a proposal strongly supported by the airlines.

This would be a mistake. The current tax system serves the aviation sector extremely well, having provided the FAA with the funds it needs for nearly four decades. But wherever user fee funding systems have been implemented, they have proved onerous, ill-conceived, and ultimately damaged general aviation.

"There is no bigger issue facing general aviation today. Our future is hostage to the FAA funding decision. If we choose user fees or radical new taxes, America's unique personal aircraft transportation system will die."
AOPA President Phil Boyer

The issues:


Does the FAA need more money?
Is the current tax system "broken"?
Are individual airspace "users" paying enough?"
Who controls the airspace system?Congress or the airlines?

The players:


The FAA and Department of Transportation...

... want user fees to "match revenue to costs," to eliminate congressional controls on what they spend, and to charge pilots directly for FAA services.

The big airlines...

...want to shift some of the costs to support the FAA onto GA, and they want to control the air traffic control system and access to "their" airspace.

The White House...

... wants to take FAA funding "off budget" by charging user fees to free tax revenue for nonaviation uses

General aviation...
...wants to preserve a robust aviation system that is the envy of the world and that serves all citizens, not just the wealthy.
The timeline:

Congress must take action by October 2007, either to renew or modify the taxes that currently fund the FAA or to institute user fees.

"This isn't about blips, or funding, or whether individual pilots pay enough. It's about creating a radical new way to pay for government safety services and turning control of safety over to private industry. It's about cost, safety, and freedom. It's about preserving general aviation and the freedom of average citizens to fly for business and pleasure."
Phil Boyer

I see flight schools all over the U.S. closing their doors. People come to the U.S. from all over the world for pilot training because we have the best and most AFFORDABLE system. CFI's will be lining up in the unemployment lines soon.

We gotta fight this!

Remember that we now have a Democrat controlled Congress. Keep your memberships up in EAA and AOPA, and be ready to SPEAK LOUDLY when those guys say to. Believe me, Phil Boyer knows how to organize the troops....so be ready!

Our President (among others) has done more damage to this country and to our freedoms than I ever thought possible!! He just can't leave well enough alone! If I didn't know better, I'd swear he was in cahoots with Daly in their mutual disdane for aviation!

I recommend everyone get off the list, stop banging rivets, and pick up the phone and a pen & paper. Remind them that the '08 campaign is already underway and you'd be more than happy to escort your local congressman out of office.

Now is not the time for resignation.

from nbaa

NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen today issued a statement concerning the fiscal year 2008 budget, released by the White House today. "It appears that, after more than a year of intense lobbying by the nation's big airlines, the White House has decided to introduce a budget that shifts airline costs to other segments of the industry and gives airlines more control over the air traffic system," Bolen said. "NBAA and the rest of the general aviation community will oppose this toxic mix of higher taxes, new fees and airline control."

Are they gonna charge fees for non controlled airports?
Are they gonna charge fees to use ATC for flight seperation in busy areas?
Are they gonna charge fees for Flight Service info?

Sure glad I know how to scud run with the best of them.

Geico266 said:

Are they gonna charge fees for non controlled airports?
Are they gonna charge fees to use ATC for flight seperation in busy areas? Are they gonna charge fees for Flight Service info?

Sure glad I know how to scud run with the best of them.

Click to expand...

And are they going to drop the existing gas taxes, or are they going to double-dip?

I would like to see some details on the proposed fees too. Are they going to remove the fuel tax?

Maybe there will be a "black market" for a list of AA, Delta, Northwest, Jet Blue ,etc. tail numbers. Just give ATC a number off the list. Be sure to keep those tail number sizes on your plane down to the min. allowed.

the good news is with the Dems taking control of Congress, Jim Oberstar is now the senior on the Transportation Committee.

BTW, you know how I always recommend people be proactive with their local media to tell the good story on aviation. THIS is one of those times when it makes PERFECT sense to call a local reporter at a newspaper and say, "hey, want to go for a ride in a plane and I'll show you what I won't be doing if the president's budget is approved and you can decide whether it's a safe thing or not."

Then take them through the Class B.

I guarantee you'll get a favorable story. Local reporters, especially, are always looking for new ways to "localize" Washington budget stories and this would be different enough to stand out from all the other special interests who'll be tugging on their sleeve.

While I appreciate the work of EAA and AOPA, this simply isn't an issue you leave to them. Pressure. Everywhere.

Bob Collins said:

the good news is with the Dems taking control of Congress, Jim Oberstar is now the senior on the Transportation Committee.

Click to expand...

On it's face, this would appear to be a sign of hope. But the previous House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman was Representative Don Young, of Alaska. Young is himself a pilot. He's from the one state in the nation that probably relies on General Aviation more than any other and can least afford user fees. He hasn't been silent on user fees or ATC privatization.

I hope Oberstar can get something done. But I'm not going to hold my breath. If Don Young, who is from the same party as the president and was part of a congressional majority, couldn't stop the user fees, what hope does Oberstar have?

I'm shaking my head, trying to figure out how it is that the party that is generally against punitive taxes like income or estate taxes, and more generally for raising revenue through excise and sales taxes, got it exactly backwards here.

Bring on the Flames

Jamie said:

No surprise here...

This has been anticipated by all the GA organizations for some while now.

Amazing that our government is so willing to turn control of the NAS over to the airlines -- the same airlines that received more than $16 billion in bailout money after 9/11 but now claim that GA needs to pay it's "fair share". The same airlines that include American Airlines, which shelled out $218 million of it's $230 million FY06 profits to it's top 50 executives while non-management employees took more than $1.6 billion in wage concessions.

Yeah...let's turn everything over to airline management. They're VERY RESPONSIBLE with money.

Click to expand...

Hey guys, I like free stuff as much as the next guy, but "pay to play" has been around a long time. When I go see the Grand Canyon, I pay to get in. When I take my boat to the lake, I pay to launch the boat. When I drive over the Golden Gate Bridge, I pay. If I go golfing, I pay. This is on top of the 50,000 dollars I pay in Federal Tax, 8,000 state tax, 16,000 (est) in sales tax, 2500 in property tax, 1000 (est) gas tax.

I'm not happy about it, but I guess you could call it the cost of doing business. Everything we do costs money, and with so many people on the
dole now days, the money's got to come from somewhere.

Then you've got to look at the congestion factor. If major airports had user fees, it's not going to hurt G/A, it's just going to keep the majority at G/A airports.......where they are the most happy anyway. When I fly G/A, wake turbulence is pretty scary! I'd much rather go to Torrance than LAX.

Why does everybody expect the airspace system to be free? The airlines are taxed heavily, for landings, for security, for terrminals, much of it being roled back into the general fund. Just like health care, highways, education and groceries, it costs money! Maybe flying's not going to be just another entitlement anymore.

Well, the problem is the money IS there and we HAVE been paying for it. But like every other dedicated funding source (like the fuel tax0, it doesn't get spent; instead it gets moved around on the books to help make the budget looked a little more balance than it really is.

I think what you describe is EXACTLY the perception that we -- as pilots -- need to explain and if pilots think we're getting something for nothing, what does that say about the person down the street? Or -- shudder -- your congressman.

Let's be clear about this: THIS is a move by the major airlines for YET ANOTHER bailout. THEY'RE the guys who want something for nothing, which is why they're the ones who are propagating this myth that the airlines are paying for he little guy.

And, believe me, they're good at this. So we won't win the battle by wringing our hands and saying "woe is us."

Now is the time to tap that inner you that you tapped when you need more perseverance to build your RV. Now is not the time to give up. It's the time to flex some muscle.

Yukon said:

Hey guys, I like free stuff as much as the next guy, but "pay to play" has been around a long time. When I go see the Grand Canyon, I pay to get in. When I take my boat to the lake, I pay to launch the boat. When I drive over the Golden Gate Bridge, I pay. If I go golfing, I pay. This is on top of the 50,000 dollars I pay in Federal Tax, 8,000 state tax, 16,000 (est) in sales tax, 2500 in property tax, 1000 (est) gas tax.

I'm not happy about it, but I guess you could call it the cost of doing business. Everything we do costs money, and with so many people on the
dole now days, the money's got to come from somewhere.

Then you've got to look at the congestion factor. If major airports had user fees, it's not going to hurt G/A, it's just going to keep the majority at G/A airports.......where they are the most happy anyway. When I fly G/A, wake turbulence is pretty scary! I'd much rather go to Torrance than LAX.

Why does everybody expect the airspace system to be free? The airlines are taxed heavily, for landings, for security, for terrminals, much of it being roled back into the general fund. Just like health care, highways, education and groceries, it costs money! Maybe flying's not going to be just another entitlement anymore.

Click to expand...

The airlines took my pension, The goverment broke the U.S. mail contract job and gave it to FEDEX, now they want to take my flying away. NO WAY ! I'm fighting mad on this one and soon as AOPA has a plan on what were going to do, This tiger is going to roar!

Phil Boyer President of AOPA wrote me this morning.

Good Job Phil! I have always been a long time EAA member but now was the time to join AOPA! Please let the membership know what we can do to stop the airlines from taking over! I'm ready to fight!


Thanks, and I appreciate having you among the over 410,000 in our membership base. With such a large pilot poulation, when we have the specific FAA FINANCING proposal - read all the ugly detail and determine who and how this is moving through Congress, we'll call on that membership base in a variety of ways. Rest assured, a strong, active and vocal AOPA membership is feared by those on Capitol Hill ...

--Phil

P.S. -- EAA and AOPA have very different missions, and I am a member of both.

EAA has NO basic Washington precense (well, one person split between all DC legislative and regulatory duties) ... yet, they have the greatest airshow event in the world, and many resources for their core mission: Experimental Aircraft. We do not. They have a terrific Youth program in Young Eagles, while we go after those at middle age and above with the time and money right now to learn to fly with AOPA;s Project Pilot.

Because when you play golf, you're paying for the upkeep of the golf course (and also to make it profitable if you're playing at a privately owned course). When you go over the bridge, you're paying for upkeep on the bridge.

Why on Earth you pay to see is Grand Canyon is beyond me. I've never been to the Grand Canyon but if that's true then that's idiotic.

Anyhow, last time I checked AIR doesn't have any particular maintenance requirements. ATC has maintenance requirements, however the only reason we have such a complex ATC system is that AIRLINES require it. The system was shoved down our throats, we've all payed for it already (many times over) with general fund contributions and fuel taxes, and now we're going to be paying even more to subsidise the airlines yet again. Hey, I don't mind subsidising airlines. They're an important part of our countries infrastructure. I DO mind being singled out to fund them significantly more than any other group in the country. If it's in the national interests (which it is), then everyone should pay for it.

Yukon said:

Maybe flying's not going to be just another entitlement anymore.

Click to expand...

John:

You really need to study up. Just because taxes we pay for the airspace system are masked into fuel taxes it doesn't mean that we don't pay for it. Flying is NOT an entitlement and never has been.

Do you not believe that airline bailouts are corporate welfare/entitlement?

Respectfully submitted,

jrsites said:

I hope Oberstar can get something done. But I'm not going to hold my breath. If Don Young, who is from the same party as the president and was part of a congressional majority, couldn't stop the user fees, what hope does Oberstar have?

Click to expand...

Just to clarify:
1. Jim Oberstar is part of a congressional majority, and it's a majority that owes no partisan deference to the White House on anything, much less this kind of corporate welfare, and

2. The old Republican majority in the House was never really known for resisting the White House on much of anything. If they had, they might not now be the Republican minority...

Point is, I'm not at all surprised Young couldn't *stop* the user fees (although I think he fought an admirable delaying action such that they aren't in place already), but I expect it will be *harder* not easier, for the administration to get these fees through this Congress.

That'll take action, though, and not just here on VAF. We should all make this a mandatory topic of "hangar flying" conversation in every group of pilots we all run with: "I've written my letter to my Congressman on user fees, have you?"

Blood out of a Rock

RV505 said:

The airlines took my pension, The goverment broke the U.S. mail contract job and gave it to FEDEX, now they want to take my flying away. NO WAY ! I'm fighting mad on this one and soon as AOPA has a plan on what were going to do, This tiger is going to roar!

Phil Boyer President of AOPA wrote me this morning.

Good Job Phil! I have always been a long time EAA member but now was the time to join AOPA! Please let the membership know what we can do to stop the airlines from taking over! I'm ready to fight!


Thanks, and I appreciate having you among the over 410,000 in our membership base. With such a large pilot poulation, when we have the specific FAA FINANCING proposal - read all the ugly detail and determine who and how this is moving through Congress, we'll call on that membership base in a variety of ways. Rest assured, a strong, active and vocal AOPA membership is feared by those on Capitol Hill ...

--Phil

P.S. -- EAA and AOPA have very different missions, and I am a member of both.

EAA has NO basic Washington precense (well, one person split between all DC legislative and regulatory duties) ... yet, they have the greatest airshow event in the world, and many resources for their core mission: Experimental Aircraft. We do not. They have a terrific Youth program in Young Eagles, while we go after those at middle age and above with the time and money right now to learn to fly with AOPA;s Project Pilot.

Click to expand...

Dude, I've NEVER had a pension and we gave the post office back their unprofitable mail contract, because belly freight pays better, and nobody's going to take your flying away. Besides, AOPA is no more effective than ALPA when trying to get blood out of a rock. The buck stops here.

Why does everybody expect the airspace system to be free?

Click to expand...

Because air is free, and the only reason I need ATC services in the first place is because the airlines exist and need positive control for full-time IFR operations. Why should it cost me anything to fly through a substance given to us by mother nature and no one had to build? Should boats pay a "user fee" to water ski on a lake?

Airports cost money, but all I need is a strip of well maintained grass. It's the FAA who regulates beacons, ASOS specs, runway concrete standards, taxiway lighting, etc. etc. etc. that makes running an airport expensive. My local airport sells maybe 50,000 gallons of avgas a year. A $1.50 surcharge on it in place of the taxes that would be used only for the local airport maintenance needs would raise $75,000/year. That's plenty to keep the concrete in good shape and fresh light bulbs in place. The land is already paid for except for the %$%#$% property taxes.

Why should it be free? Because no individual, government or group should have a right to keep me from exercising my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, either through laws or fees. I can imagine what my grandfather would have to say about the point we've come to in allowing the government to control our lives. Every time someone flies a 767 into a building, we'll lose more control of our individual lives in the name of the collective safety of everyone. Frankly, terrorists are about as worrisome to me as a cloudy day. Add one more thing to the list of things that will kill me, right behind high blood pressure. I'm more likely to choke on a snickers bar and die than at the hands of terrorists. When the threat gets too high, it's time to use those weapons we spent billions developing for just such an emergency.

Whew! Thanks for letting me get that out. It's perspective, people!

Dave

Bob Collins said:

Well, the problem is the money IS there and we HAVE been paying for it. But like every other dedicated funding source (like the fuel tax0, it doesn't get spent; instead it gets moved around on the books to help make the budget looked a little more balance than it really is.

Click to expand...

That, I think, is the REAL skeleton in the closet. Every administration has done it. Whether it's the Social Security trust fund, or the Airways trust fund, they keep the money on the books to "balance" the General Fund budget. The Airways trust fund generates billions, yes BILLIONS of dollars of revenues per year. Though that money can only be spent on aviation infrastructure needs, as long as the government keeps the money on the books, it is considered a cash asset that "balances" out billions of dollars worth of a General Fund spending deficit.

And that's why the government has been quick to rake the fuel tax revenues in, but very slow to spend them. The current system of excise taxes generates all of the revenue that is needed to keep our airspace system running properly. They just need to spend it.

Just lay back and enjoy it..?

I just read the post from Yukon. I myself can't just lay back and enjoy it because it's going to happen anyway. It's thinking like that that has your taxes so high in the first place. We already pay more that our share thru fuel taxes.
I was with the airlines for 25 years and believe me, they will get anybody to pay for their screw ups anyway they can. I know what I talk about there. My pension is down the tubes, but hey, it was just 25 years of work, what did I expect.
Quit thinking we owe the government anything.
If I didn't know for sure, I'd think I was reading an ad for the Democrat party from Yukon..

Yukon said:

Why does everybody expect the airspace system to be free? The airlines are taxed heavily, for landings, for security, for terrminals, much of it being roled back into the general fund. Just like health care, highways, education and groceries, it costs money! Maybe flying's not going to be just another entitlement anymore.

Click to expand...

The Federal Interstate System are paid for by general fund and gas taxes. The Federal government decided that it was in the interest of the country to build the system and have people pay for some of its costs via gas (and diesel) taxes.

So, I want the federal airspace system to work just like federal highways - the feds build it and we pay back the costs via fuel taxes. I would not have to pay a per-use charge, but pay in taxes Shockingly, this is exactly how it works right now. Why change it?

Local airport improvements should be made via a combination of federal grants and local money - if the community wants a better airport at XYZ, they should come up with part of it and the feds match. Amazingly, this just how it is right now. Why change it?

If the airlines want a bigger, better system, let them pay for it. With the possible exception of better traffic avoidance via ADS-B, I can't see how any of the discussed "next generation airspace system" will benefit most of us in piston-powered GA and certainly not when flying VFR. This sounds like a system by the airlines and for the airlines, but not paid for by the airlines. Again, it is all a scam to kill VLJs, which they see as competitors.

(side-note: Fuel-based taxes promote fuel economy. Fuel economy means less reliance on foreign oil and less GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions. Both of these are good side effects, IMHO.)

grover said:

"It appears that, after more than a year of intense lobbying by the nation's big airlines, the White House has decided to introduce a budget that shifts airline costs to other segments of the industry and gives airlines more control over the air traffic system,"

Click to expand...

Any details on the "more control over the air traffic system"?

I've been hearing this for quite a while, but never anything specific....

DC YXer said:

Just to clarify:
1. Jim Oberstar is part of a congressional majority, and it's a majority that owes no partisan deference to the White House on anything, much less this kind of corporate welfare, and

2. The old Republican majority in the House was never really known for resisting the White House on much of anything. If they had, they might not now be the Republican minority...

Point is, I'm not at all surprised Young couldn't *stop* the user fees (although I think he fought an admirable delaying action such that they aren't in place already), but I expect it will be *harder* not easier, for the administration to get these fees through this Congress.

That'll take action, though, and not just here on VAF. We should all make this a mandatory topic of "hangar flying" conversation in every group of pilots we all run with: "I've written my letter to my Congressman on user fees, have you?"

Click to expand...

All points well taken. But there are other points that must be considered:

1. Oberstar is from Minnesota. Northwest Airlines, who are one of the prime pushers of User Fees, employs a large number of Minnesotans. Northwest has been close to going under before. It's not unthinkable that Northwest could "inform" their employees that the company will be in big trouble unless those pesky GA people are forced to pay their fair share of the cost of flying. Northwest Airlines represents a large portion of Oberstar's constituency, and he will certainly have to weigh their "needs" in any action.

2. In general, Democrats don't fight for LESS taxes. Democrats know, just as well as Republicans, that keeping the Airway Trust Fund intact and on the books is a tool that allows them to spend more money than income taxes generate but still appear to "balance" the budget. Even if Oberstar has the fiscal restraint to want to burden the public with fewer taxes, he'll be swimming against the prevailing current of his party. We can only hope that Democrats are serious about undoing some of the fiscal excesses that their supposedly "conservative" Republican predecessors have foisted upon us. But again, judging by precedent, I'm not holding my breath. In my experience, Democrats have never met a tax they didn't like. I'm just blazing mad that Republicans let their spending get so out of control that they've had to adopt the same credo.

Yukon said:

Dude, I've NEVER had a pension and we gave the post office back their unprofitable mail contract, because belly freight pays better, and nobody's going to take your flying away. Besides, AOPA is no more effective than ALPA when trying to get blood out of a rock. The buck stops here.

Click to expand...

QUOTE=Yukon]Go for it Bryan, it's a great job! I'll give you my seat in 8 years![/QUOTE]

ALPA did have a hand in getting you another 5 years in the seat so you could save money for retirement. I think you been wear your hat a little to tight captain!

Yukon said:

If you want to fly, pay for it.

Click to expand...

We do pay for it. Every time we pay a fuel bill.

If it were the case that the annual revenues from fuel taxes weren't enough to pay for the infrastructure needs, then I would see the need to find sources of additional revenue to make sure the system doesn't collapse. But that is simply not the case. The fuel taxes generate plenty of revenue - if the government would just RELEASE it!

And even if there were a need for additional revenue, why not just generate it by increasing the fuel tax? Why create an entirely new bureaucracy, with all of the waste an inefficiencies that go along with it? We all know the path this is leading down. They'll institute user fees. By the time the back end process that is needed to collect and distribute those fees is put in place, they'll discover - low and behold - "it's more expensive to collect and process these user fees than we thought! We need to raise the user fees to pay for all our user fee collectors!"

Even if more revenue is needed to support our aviation infrastructure, a more complex bureaucracy is not the best way to collect that revenue.

Release the Aviation Trust Fund monies!

jreekree said:

I just read the post from Yukon. I myself can't just lay back and enjoy it because it's going to happen anyway. It's thinking like that that has your taxes so high in the first place. We already pay more that our share thru fuel taxes.
I was with the airlines for 25 years and believe me, they will get anybody to pay for their screw ups anyway they can. I know what I talk about there. My pension is down the tubes, but hey, it was just 25 years of work, what did I expect.
Quit thinking we owe the government anything.
If I didn't know for sure, I'd think I was reading an ad for the Democrat party from Yukon..

Click to expand...

No Jerry, card-carrying Republican here. Sorry about your pension, I know it isn't fair. Wasn't always happy with my 401K, but it sure looks good now.

When I was a new copilot 17 years ago, I used to listen to our off-line jumpseaters crowing about "dozing for dollars" across the Pacific and their "Industry Leading Contracts". Funny how things change.

This country is going down the tubes, just like the majors did because they both were slow to recognize costs, and balance them with revenue. You can't fly a $150 million dollar plane to Hawaii packed with entitlement-seeking freeloaders for $199 on $2.00 gas, and feed them Fillets on the way! It just doesn't work that way!

Now you pay for a sandwich, and a headset, and now it cost 600 bucks, just as it should of a long time ago, before your pension went away. If you can't afford to go to Hawaii, stay home and play golf.

Maybe what Mr. Boyer needs to do is call for a nation wide use of the system by GA including operations from the class B's. Think of it, a national fly into a class b or c airport day by every GA plane that will start. It would be a mess with everybody trying to call center/approach/departure. The radios would sound like 122.80 on a busy day with squealing non stop. Everybody who is rated could file IFR... You get the picture.

Yukon said:

No Jerry, card-carrying Republican here.

Click to expand...

Just an attempt to keep things light here.

I, too am a Republican. Just about as conservative as they come. Funny how two people with two similar sets of values can see the same situation so differently!

With respect to your "entitlement" angle: I completely agree that some people's expectations with regard to airline travel is completely out of whack. It is ridiculous for them to expect filet mignon on a $99 coast-to-coast ticket. But I'm not sure how those passengers have anything to do with we general aviation pilots.

What I think I understand you to be saying is that the airlines are under pressure to provide a certain level of service to those whiny passengers, and that the airlines can't afford to provide that level of service, thus the user fee system is needed in order to distribute some of the cost burden off of the airlines' backs.

In essence, what I understand you to be saying is that you think it's perfectly legitimate to ask GA pilots to pay for those whiny entitlement-seekers to be able to fly to Hawaii for $150 while eating fillets. Isn't that backward? Shouldn't the those whiny passengers need to be the one to absorb an increase in ticket costs to pay for the services they're demanding?

You yourself mentioned the Majors' inability to come to grips with the need for efficiency and to balance costs with revenue. In my opinion, what this whole user fee proposal does is further insulate those inefficient Majors from the pain of NOT coming to grips with those facts. It allows them to continue catering to the whiny entitlement-seekers rather than make the difficult choice to match the level of service to the level of revenue, or vice versa.

Put simply, I see the user fee scheme as nothing more than a subsidy in the grand tradition of France plowing major cash into Airbus. Or the obscene amounts of money we pay farmers to NOT grow crops. It is a subsidy that does nothing more than allow inefficient operations remain comfortably inefficient and not have to make hard choices.

Wouldn't it be much simpler for the Feds to be honest and say: "Our airline industry is messed up but we need it for the good of the country. We've made the decision to subsidise the airlines, just like we've done with steel and all of us are going to pay for it."

That would be honest, effecient and simple.

On the other hand, we always knew deep down that they'd one day find a way to tax air.

Oh yeah...Yukon....I DO agree with you completely that airline passengers want it all without having to pay for it.

Jamie said:

Oh yeah...Yukon....I DO agree with you completely that airline passengers want it all without having to pay for it.

Click to expand...

Having been a frequent business traveller at one time, I'm all for a user fee on being a PITA passenger. Fines and taxes for whiny kids as well.

Why the Government needs the money

As mentioned previously, and I?m paraphrasing here, the amount of money we contribute to the tax structure, whether it?s income, social security, federal excise, etc. basically all goes into one big pot that the Government then spends like drunken sailors (no offense meant to current or former members of the US Navy). Out of this pot come things like funding for the war in Iraq. The amount of money spent on the war in Iraq so far (over 364 billion dollars) is enough to fund the FAA at its 2006 budget level (13.78 billion) for about 26 years, obviously not considering the cost of inflation or capital improvements. We could also equate it to the cost of rebuilding New Orleans, developing alternate energy sources, building bases on the moon, mounting missions to Mars, or feeding needy children, but no matter how you cut it, 364 billion dollars would buy a lot of tacos.

Is it possible that the Government is looking for sources of revenue to make up for the vast Iraq expenditure, and General Aviation is only one convenient source, with all of those rich people flying their little airplanes around the sky? The bean counters might be thinking that with over ? million GA pilots roaming around, blundering into TFR?s and generally making a nuisance of themselves, it wouldn?t be too hard to tap them for, say, a couple of extra grand a year for services, like weather briefings, flight plans, ATC contacts, flight following, license fees, landing fees, breathing the air in Class B airspace, etc. That would add up pretty quickly. Let?s see ? million times 2 grand. That?s a billion dollars a year. Hmmm. Maybe they can up the ante to 5 grand apiece. Once they get a foot in the door, all they have to do is increase the rates. It would probably be a lot easier to raise the cost of a briefing or landing fee than to institute new taxes. Besides, the Government has made it a point to lower taxes, haven?t they? Revenue from sources such as User Fees can be disguised to not look like taxes. Is this the equivalent of slipping a one dollar bill into one pocket while stealing ten from the other? You might think you can get around some User Fees by not getting weather briefings, filing flight plans, etc. but the Government is a clever lot, and it could soon be mandated by regulation that you could not fly VFR without getting a weather briefing or filing a flight plan. So much for scud running.

What will we be buying with User Fees, aside from the Iraq war? The cost of running the FAA includes salaries and benefits for all of its employees. I know that there are many dedicated, talented, and highly productive FAA employees, but I can?t help but wonder how many there are that make a career out of shuffling papers from one pile to another, or the electronic equivalent. The FAA requires improvements to its airport and airway infrastructure to meet the needs of the 21st Century, things like ADS-B, Free Flight, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima, managing the traffic flow into and out of busy airports, all with lots of new hardware and software. Guess who needs those services? It?s mostly the AIRLINES. It?s amazingly clever how the AIRLINES, the paradigm of good business practice, convinced the Government to institute users fees, so that all of the little airplanes could pay for their use of the National Airspace System. I?m guessing, but I don?t think this would meet with the approval of Wilber and Orville.

There are plenty of examples to look at and to see the affect of User Fees on General Aviation, and it is not a pretty picture. I have Australian, UK, German and US pilot licenses and I have seen first hand what User Fees do to General Aviation. The irony is that after User Fees have effectively killed GA in our country, who is going to be left to pay the way for the AIRLINES. I guess they?ll cross that bridge when they come to it. In the meantime, they?ll have the sky pretty much to themselves.

Please don?t let this happen. Write to your senators and representative and voice your displeasure. Heck, write to them even if you think Users Fees are a good thing. After all, it?s a free country. Let?s keep it that way?

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

Yes Jamie, I think you are incorrect. The Federal Government reponds financially in the event of a disaster. That's the way it was set up, that's the way it works. New Orleans hurricane, Florida tornadoes, Denver snow storms, Chrysler bailout, cash flies around like snow. I didn't write the laws, and if you don't like them, write your congressman, not the VAF.

This country is going bankrupt. What's your solution?

Jamie said:

Oh...you mean that act of war that American and United were at least partly responsible for? It was their airliners on that horrible and tragic day...yet they throw up their hands like they had absolutely no responsibility in the matter...then turn their hands over to collect their taxpayer bailouts. How much have the subsequent wars cost taxpayers? Trillions.

?

Click to expand...

Wow, speechless!

CFI1513840 said:

As mentioned previously, and I?m paraphrasing here, the amount of money we contribute to the tax structure, whether it?s income, social security, federal excise, etc. basically all goes into one big pot that the Government then spends like drunken sailors (no offense meant to current or former members of the US Navy).

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. The excise tax we pay on aviation fuel purchases goes to the Aviation Trust fund. The monies in that fund can ONLY be used on aviation infrastructure. The government can't spend it on the Iraq war or any other General Fund item. Same goes for Social Security taxes. They go into the Social Security trust fund and can't be used for anything other than Social Security payouts.

ALPA did have a hand in getting you another 5 years in the seat so you could save money for retirement. I think you been wear your hat a little to tight captain![/QUOTE]

MR. 505,

Apologizing in advance for introducing facts into your discussion, but ALPA has taken a position against the age 60 initiative from the beginning. Old duffers like me hanging around impede upgrades, so most copilots are against it. In any event, I intend to retire at age 60 anyway so I can get my fair share of entitlements. I should be home building on my 9 instead of sitting in this hotel!

Respectfully, the ALPA and/or the "age 60 rule" have nothing to do with this. The ATA (Airline Transport Assn) and the airlines themselves are the money and power behind this initiative.

Yukon said:

This country is going bankrupt. What's your solution?

Click to expand...

It's not hard to find solutions, John...but they're undoubtedly inappropriate for Doug's forums since they don't involve aviation in any way. You can google 'pork projects' for any number of cutbacks that could put the country back into the black.

Yukon said:

Yes Jamie, I think you are incorrect. The Federal Government reponds financially in the event of a disaster. That's the way it was set up, that's the way it works. New Orleans hurricane, Florida tornadoes, Denver snow storms, Chrysler bailout, cash flies around like snow. I didn't write the laws, and if you don't like them, write your congressman, not the VAF.

This country is going bankrupt. What's your solution?

Click to expand...

My solution is to change that way of thinking. The hurricane in New Orleans is a perfect example of how subsidies mask incompetence. New Orleans was a poorly run city which was not prepared for a hurricane. It is the job of the LOCAL government to serve and protect the citizens in it's confines, not the federal government. All of the government money going there is hiding the fact that the local government was incompetent and ill-prepared.

I would much rather that we see a reduction in national taxes in exchange for an increase in local taxes as necessary to plan and prepare for these kinds of things. If you choose to live in New Orleans or Florida where there is a fairly real threat of hurricanes, so be it. Just realize that you are going to pay higher taxes locally in order to be prepared for them.

Why should I, in Kansas, have to pay tax money that goes to cover up the corrupt New Orleans government's incompetence? Or to pay for people who chose to live in an area that gets hit by hurricanes to rebuild their houses. Again. Doesn't it make more sense for this type of money to be collected and distributed LOCALLY? That way it's not being sent to Washington D.C. first, where the inefficiencies and corruption of a much LARGER Federal government and its bureaucracy end up skimming 50% off of every tax dollar, ultimately leaving very little of the money to actually help at its intended destination.

Every time I hear about how FEMA cards were used to buy Saints season tickets, I'm more and more convinced that the funding for these types of things belong at the local level, not at the national level.

jrsites said:

Why should I, in Kansas, have to pay tax money that goes to cover up the corrupt New Orleans government's incompetence?

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but that's a very slippery slope you're advocating. Why should I, in Ohio, pay farm subsidies for Kansas farms, for example?

The fundamental problem here, in my more-than-likely egregiously uninformed opinion, is the death of Federalism, aka States rights. The Federal gov't has grown orders of magnitude more bloated and powerful than was ever envisioned by the Founders, and beyond that, unelected bureaucracies have gained far more control over our daily lives than I'm comfortable with.

Dgamble said:

I don't disagree with you, but that's a very slippery slope you're advocating. Why should I, in Ohio, pay farm subsidies for Kansas farms, for example?

Click to expand...

You shouldn't have to. In general, I think farm subsidies are horrible policy. I just can't believe that we actually pay farms to NOT grow certain crops, and that they actually make more money by not growing anything than they would by planting a different crop. As cruel as it sounds, at some point in time we have to let free market principles work. If there's too much corn being produced, then farmers had better find a different crop to grow. And they'd better start prodding their kids to look into preparing for a career other than farming. But they shouldn't come whining to the government because they can no longer sell their corn at a high enough price to keep the farm.

Dgamble said:

I don't disagree with you, but that's a very slippery slope you're advocating. Why should I, in Ohio, pay farm subsidies for Kansas farms, for example?

The fundamental problem here, in my more-than-likely egregiously uninformed opinion, is the death of Federalism, aka States rights. The Federal gov't has grown orders of magnitude more bloated and powerful than was ever envisioned by the Founders, and beyond that, unelected bureaucracies have gained far more control over our daily lives than I'm comfortable with.

Click to expand...

Agree completely (about the death of Federalism, not your uninformed opinion )

What many people don't understand is that our country was founded as a Federal Republic, NOT a Democracy. And we've slowly lost those Federalist principles.

jrsites said:

My solution is to change that way of thinking. The hurricane in New Orleans is a perfect example of how subsidies mask incompetence. New Orleans was a poorly run city which was not prepared for a hurricane. It is the job of the LOCAL government to serve and protect the citizens in it's confines, not the federal government. All of the government money going there is hiding the fact that the local government was incompetent and ill-prepared.

I would much rather that we see a reduction in national taxes in exchange for an increase in local taxes as necessary to plan and prepare for these kinds of things. If you choose to live in New Orleans or Florida where there is a fairly real threat of hurricanes, so be it. Just realize that you are going to pay higher taxes locally in order to be prepared for them.

Why should I, in Kansas, have to pay tax money that goes to cover up the corrupt New Orleans government's incompetence? Or to pay for people who chose to live in an area that gets hit by hurricanes to rebuild their houses. Again. Doesn't it make more sense for this type of money to be collected and distributed LOCALLY? That way it's not being sent to Washington D.C. first, where the inefficiencies and corruption of a much LARGER Federal government and its bureaucracy end up skimming 50% off of every tax dollar, ultimately leaving very little of the money to actually help at its intended destination.

Every time I hear about how FEMA cards were used to buy Saints season tickets, I'm more and more convinced that the funding for these types of things belong at the local level, not at the national level.

Click to expand...

Good ideas Jeff, but that's not the way it works. Besides, way too many people that don't pay taxes in Florida and New Orleans for that plan to work!
And to keep this discussion on topic, why would you object to GA user taxes if you want local costs shifted back to state and local governments? Seems a
landing fee at LAX might be a good trade for taking up 3 minutes of runway time that might benefit 300 tax-paying Americans ( or 300 retirees!).

I don't see what any of this has to do with user fees, gas taxes and flying RV's (or Bearhawks, in my case).

The real issue here is for those of us that wish to maintain our freedom to fly experimentals, or even fly at all, AND be able to do so affordably so this doesn't turn into a rich man's hobby, what's to be done? The fact that there are other problems too is beside the point. Yes, they're somewhat interlinked in a tangential way but airlines and GA fees really don't have much to do with Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, illegal immigration/undocumented aliens/whatever, Iraq, Italy or anything else.

It wasn't always the case that I could comfortably afford aviation. I'm fortunate and grateful that I can do so now. Situations change and this may not always be the case. It's also NOT the case currently for many people, and there are scores more that can't afford it at all. That's life but the notion that we should pay more because we can is just un-American, frankly. And anyhow, some people can't.

No one here is asking for 40 acres and mule. It's not unreasonable to think that the use of air should be free and that if airline travel demands a large infrastructure to be in place that GA shouldn't be singled out to pay for it.

Although it's not related to RV building exactly it does certainly impact our ability to enjoy this sport. People like Doug and Bob Collins are in an excellent position to help rally the troops for those of us that are interested in fighting this (and assuming of course that they choose to take an active role which is certainly a personal choice).

jcoloccia said:

I don't see what any of this has to do with user fees, gas taxes and flying RV's (or Bearhawks, in my case).

The real issue here is for those of us that wish to maintain our freedom to fly experimentals, or even fly at all, AND be able to do so affordably so this doesn't turn into a rich man's hobby, what's to be done? The fact that there are other problems too is beside the point. Yes, they're somewhat interlinked in a tangential way but airlines and GA fees really don't have much to do with Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, illegal immigration/undocumented aliens/whatever, Iraq, Italy or anything else.

It wasn't always the case that I could comfortably afford aviation. I'm fortunate and grateful that I can do so now. Situations change and this may not always be the case. It's also NOT the case currently for many people, and there are scores more that can't afford it at all. That's life but the notion that we should pay more because we can is just un-American, frankly. And anyhow, some people can't.

No one here is asking for 40 acres and mule. It's not unreasonable to think that the use of air should be free and that if airline travel demands a large infrastructure to be in place that GA shouldn't be singled out to pay for it.

Although it's not related to RV building exactly it does certainly impact our ability to enjoy this sport. People like Doug and Bob Collins are in an excellent position to help rally the troops for those of us that are interested in fighting this (and assuming of course that they choose to take an active role which is certainly a personal choice).

Click to expand...

Joe, Air is free and won't be taxed. If you fly off your own farm strip I don't suppose you will be paying many user fees. But if you want to jam up the final at Sky Harbor shooting practice ILS's, expect to pay some freight in the near future.

Remember Joe, I too have an RV in my garage. I don't look forward to any unreasonable fees. If I had my drothers, I'd never file another flight plan. Low and slow is the only way to go!

Yukon said:

Joe, Air is free and won't be taxed. If you fly off your own farm strip I don't suppose you will be paying many user fees. But if you want to jam up the final at Sky Harbor shooting practice ILS's, expect to pay some freight in the near future.

Remember Joe, I too have an RV in my garage. I don't look forward to any unreasonable fees. If I had my drothers, I'd never file another flight plan. Low and slow is the only way to go!

Click to expand...

If a controller doesn't have the bandwidth for a practice ILS approach he will simply say "unable". There's no clogging going on (at least there shouldn't be).

If you look at the history of user fees in other countries you will see that they undoutedly creep into every aspect of flying, from weather briefs to flight plans.

Why should I pay for the ILS at Sky Harbor, by the way? How many times do we need to pay for it?