|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

02-06-2007, 05:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Albany, GA for the moment
Posts: 294
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dgamble
Not exactly onerous as proposed, though, no matter how you feel about the principle involved:
Nav Canada wants to charge GA planes $5 per day to use several major airports in the country, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association claims.
|
The problem is that it starts at $5 a day and GA starts avoiding those airports and the FAA starts losing money. Then it becomes $25 and they're still losing money. Then it becomes all towered airports and $100 in a desperate attempt to get more funding. Then it's $200 anytime you contact ATC. You get the picture.
PJ
RV-10 #40032
|

02-06-2007, 06:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (ADS)
Posts: 2,180
|
|
Since people have asked about NavCanada fees, here is a summary from the current NavCanada "customer guide to fees":
Aircraft under 1,360 lb: No annual fees.
Aircraft between 1,360 and 4,400lb: Annual fee of $71
Aircraft between 4,400 and 6,600lb: Annual fee of $236
Aircraft over 6,600 lb: Daily fee for each day of flying plus terminal fees at larger airports OR a per-km fee. Price schedules for props and jets are different.
Special case: Aircraft over 4,400 lb that are flown for private (non-business) use are assessed only an annual fee of $71/yr, regardless of MGTW.
Special case: All aircraft over 16,500lb pay per-km fees of $0.03589/km, but no daily of terminal fees.
Special case: Additional fees apply for overwater or other services provided to air carriers.
Starting March 1, 2008, a fee of $10 will apply to all aircraft under 6,600 lb that depart or arrive from Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto (Pearson), Ottawa (Macdonald-Cartier), and Montr?al (Trudeau) international.
Example: Beech 200, MGTW 12,500lb, departing or landing any towered field:
Daily fee of $79/day + Terminal fee of $88.44 = $167.44
This might not seem that bad for us. However, taxes, once established, never go down unless you have big political friends, which GA doesn't.
__________________
Doug "The Other Doug Reeves" Reeves
CTSW N621CT - SOLD but not forgotten
Home Bases LBX, BZN
|

02-06-2007, 07:08 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,357
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dgamble
Now ATC services, that's a different kettle of fish and I don't know how that's working out for our Canadian friends.
|
In my opinion, as a Canadian based pilot who flies a couple of times a week professionally, the level of ATC service has improved since ATC services were privatised. The user fees allowed an increase in funding, which Nav Canada used to upgrade equipment. So far, unless you are based at one of the seven busiest airports in the country, the fees have been very reasonable for GA. I do worry about the future though, but that seems to be the same on either side of the border.
The Nav Canada GA user fees work because they are fairly low, and they are exactly the same no matter how much you use the system. Tying the amount of the fee to the amount that a GA aircraft uses the system would push people to avoid calling weather briefers, filling flight plans, and flying IFR, etc. This would decrease safety. Having one fee no how matter how much the system is used also saves on administrative overhead, both for Nav Canada and GA.
|

02-06-2007, 07:33 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Posts: 4,792
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jrsites
Am I understanding correctly that Oberstar and the Democrats will oppose user fees simply because the president supports them?
|
No, you are not understanding that correctly. Oberstar will oppose user fees for the same reason that he has been opposing user fees for year. Jim Oberstar is one of aviation's best friends. My reference to the Dems being in no mood referred to the other way good things go bad in Washington -- deals with the president. They're in no mood to make one. That's a good thing.
And by the way, a lot of Republicans feel the same way.
Look, it would be a mistake to make this a I'm a Dem vs. I'm a Republican issue, although -- trust me -- people will want to make it that way. If we resort to that, well, then we're finished.
So maybe we should get this straight among ourselves before we waste any time.
Is this going to be an issue that we're want this country to puruse on its merits.
Or is this going to be another one of those stupid "let me see how my party things about this first" method of evaluating issues in America. That's gotten us in great shape so far, hasn't it. THIS is a bipartisan issue and this isn't a case of "I don't want to pay." Check the price of avgas lately. That's your funding? Pay your registration for your airplanes. That's your funding.
GA is not against paying its fair share. GA is not in favor of sacrificing itself for the benefit of the legacy airlines. They wanted deregulation. They got it. They negotiated their union contracts; they live with it or adjust it.
Let's be clear. There's no going back here. They're NOT going to roll back the taxes on avgas. They're not going to return the money we already pay that doesn't get spent. They're not going to unlock the Aviation Trust Fund. This is in addition.
But even worse, the money you pay is NOT going to be to enhance the air system you use. The money you pay -- or not -- is not going to make our skies safer.
Examine the facts, think for yourselves, and then make your phone calls.
Or spend your time finding someone to take that airplane off your hands which is about to become worth a fraction of its present value.
Last edited by LettersFromFlyoverCountry : 02-06-2007 at 07:39 PM.
|

02-06-2007, 07:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Indianapolis, IN (KUMP)
Posts: 1,024
|
|
Bob-
Any suggestions for how to contact / how to approach a local reporter? I would be interested in doing this - both in the town where I work (small market) and in the town where I live (Indianapolis - bigger market - yeah COLTS!).
I am not sure about how to approach the cold call and how to make it sound interesting / worthwhile to a reporter. Any suggestions?
Thanks
Thomas
__________________
Thomas Short
KUMP - Indianapolis, IN / KAEJ - Buena Vista, CO
RV-10 N410TS bought / flying
RV-8 wings / fuse in progress ... still
1948 Cessna 170 N3949V
|

02-06-2007, 07:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (ADS)
Posts: 2,180
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kevin Horton
Tying the amount of the fee to the amount that a GA aircraft uses the system would push people to avoid calling weather briefers, filling flight plans, and flying IFR, etc. This would decrease safety. Having one fee no how matter how much the system is used also saves on administrative overhead, both for Nav Canada and GA.
|
I understand that most European countries assess fees for briefings, flight following, landings at most airports, etc. This is what we really should be afraid of, not what NavCanada has put in place.
__________________
Doug "The Other Doug Reeves" Reeves
CTSW N621CT - SOLD but not forgotten
Home Bases LBX, BZN
|

02-06-2007, 07:46 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Posts: 4,792
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gorbak
OK. So I agree that we are only 440,000 AOPA members/pilots vs. many a million Joe Six Pack in America. This may seem daunting to fight the good fight for general aviation when there may be millions that believe GA should pay.
|
I doubt Joe Six Pack thinks with one mind. And if Joe Six Pack is against us, it's because Joe Sixpack doesn't know us and what we think. THIS is why I've recommended for months and months to engage your community with news about what we do.
This is why over a million Young Eagles have been flown.
Time to cash in our favors and play the game of politics better than our opponents.
There's no question in my mind that this is a winnable argument. Every single one of you has a person representing you in Congress. They have district offices. They make local appearances. Pick up your phone and start doing YOUR job too.
YOu can find your rep by entering your zip code here. But please do not send e-mail. I know how this stuff works from the receiving end. Phone calls first, then a letter, then you pull 'em aside when they come back to their district.
Don't worry about what the other 300 million Americans are going to do. Each one of us has to only worry about what we're going to do.
This is a winnable fight. So who's up for a little battle or two?
|

02-06-2007, 07:55 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Posts: 4,792
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TShort
Bob-
Any suggestions for how to contact / how to approach a local reporter? I would be interested in doing this - both in the town where I work (small market) and in the town where I live (Indianapolis - bigger market - yeah COLTS!).
I am not sure about how to approach the cold call and how to make it sound interesting / worthwhile to a reporter. Any suggestions?
Thanks
Thomas
|
Cold calls are dicey and I wouldn't recommend. Here's the secret of getting coverage: it only takes one. TV stations and newspapers read everyone else's newspapers. So work on getting one.
It's easier, actually, to do this in a small market than a larger one, but that's OK. One vote at a time, and a congressman from flyover country has the same number of votes.
The first thing, I think, is to get together with a couple of others at the airport to see if you want to host a reporter coming by. Figure out what reporter you want to approach. At a small newspaper, see whose byline is most prominent. If they have email drop 'em line. Don't push the whole budget thing, right yet. There's a gazillion groups out there hollering "chicken little" when the budget comes out and you'll just blend in.
Instead, just be honest and say there's a group of pilots at the local airfield who think there's some interesting stories to tell. And let's face it, there are. There's homebuilders, there's old WWII vets, there's the folks running Angel flights, the kids getting Young Eagle rides etc...
You'd like to introduce yourselves and invite the reporter out to the airfield and, if they'd like, a ride. And you'd like to provide BACKGROUND (important word) that will help them if they ever write a story.
I wouldn't necessarily pitch a story, but I'd dangle that you've got some ideas. But wha tyou're really trying to do is get them out to see you face to face. Once you do that, the rest is easy (and I'd be happy to help with them).
For somewhat larger cities, you may also want to consider the Associated Press.
I can help here and elsewhere. If you tell me where you all are, I can offer some ideas for people to contact. I might even be able to drop a line ahead of time and let them know you'll be contacting them.
After you email (or even better, drop a handwritten note), then follow it up with a phone call.
Reporters are busy all the time, so the cold call is going to interrupt something. That's why I think the first goal is to get the bug in their ear by way of an email or note. Trust me. They'll be thinking about it by the time you follow up.
Don't do press releases or any of that stuff. Those pretty much go right in the trash and, like the other stuff, blends in with all the people who also want their time.
Our strength here, besides the stories we have to tell, is going to be personal contact.
It'll be a little like a blind date at first.
|

02-06-2007, 08:01 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Posts: 4,792
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the_other_dougreeves
This might not seem that bad for us. However, taxes, once established, never go down unless you have big political friends, which GA doesn't.
|
Actually, I think we do. Once a year, for example, the FAA comes to Oshkosh. That's a HUGE political friend we've got there -- EAA's lobbyists and contacts (you know how people are upset that the EAA isn't about only homebuilding anymore? This is one reason why it shouldn't be. It's a player). The AOPA is obviously a big player and there's a lot of GA friends in Congress. and, last time I checked, there weren't any airline pilots in Congress. But there's a few GA pilots. Good.
That's why I think this is a two-pronged effort. We've got EAA and AOPA handling the Washington end of things and counting votes and twisting arms.
And we -- at our little workerbee level -- put the pressure on at the "folks back home" level.
I know AOPA and EAA will do their part. I'm very sure that we will all do ours. But this is one that you don't leave to the "other guy" to do. If we really care -- and I know we do -- we each have to do our part.
Like a football team, winning the effort is a matter of eveyrone staying focused and every player doing their job.
Last edited by LettersFromFlyoverCountry : 02-06-2007 at 08:05 PM.
|

02-06-2007, 08:02 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 742
|
|
And when the airlines with all their extra money have to start offering way higher pay to entice our highly trained "million dollar" military pilots not to reenlist and come to work for a wonderful airline because there are no more civilian pilots willing to work for $24,000/yr., strike that, THERE ARE NO MORE CIVILIAN PILOTS PERIOD because commercial pilot training goes from about 80K to 160K . My emphasis here is on taking our military pilots away whos training was paid for by our govt. to defend our country. I thought I read somewhere that it costs over a million dollars to train a fighter pilot. His/her incentive now is ok-good pay and flying cool/fun airplanes. When the airlines get a few extra billion/yr from us they can spend half on recruiting military pilots and pocket the rest. 
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:36 AM.
|