Brantel

Brantel

Well Known Member
Just got a letter back from Senator John McCain...

Not so good! He basically told me that my opinion did not matter and that he supported user fees because everyone should pay their fair share of the funding/modernization effort.

He totally disregarded the fact that we currently pay our fair share by fuel taxes.

:(

Write your government officials today!
 
That is pretty much the same response I got back from Senator Wyden here in Oregon...but I'm going to write him back because his position letter to me did not address ONE of the points I raised in my first letter. I'm also going to phone his office and leave voice mails and talk with his minions, both here at his Oregon offices and in his DC offices.

You'd think with all the homegrown GA activity in the NW (Van's, AFS, Dynon, CAD, Glastar, Evergreen Aviation, Columbia, Microsoft, etc), he'd be more interested in doing the right thing.

And I'll make it my job to try to make sure he at least acknowleges the importance of GA to his constituents...even if he's in the pockets of the airlines.
 
Fearless said:
Well I guess you can vote against him in the Primaries.
Click to expand...
I can't.... He is not my Senator. He was on the subcommitte that passed this garbage and now it is up to the full Senate to vote on. I wrote him anyway back when this thing was up for vote by the subcommittee.

Write your Senators and let them know that this thing should not pass!
 
Yep it does not matter

Fearless said:
Well I guess you can vote against him in the Primaries.
Click to expand...
That is not going to be an issue, he's down in the polls with little chance of getting the party's nomination. I like McCain as a person, but when he said airline pilots are lazy many years ago he was on my list. 18 hour duty day, 6 to 12 hour time zone changes, ++200 days on the road per year and after a 4 day trip beat to heck, dead on your first day off; yea we really don't work.
 
I don't think anyone needs to worry too much about McCain winning the nomination... I'd be surprised. :p And scared if that is his view of GA.
 
Senator Lott (MS?)

Also appears to be anti-GA. Personally, just one year I wish Americans would throw out every single US Congressdude/Senator up for election.
 
Ok, I'll bite

This time around there isn't a presidential candidate that I would vote for from either party.

I sure wish there was a real option in terms of a legitimate 3rd party. Who knows, if the Republicans and Democrats keep going the way they are, that wish might just be granted.
 
Brantel said:
I can't.... He is not my Senator.
QUOTE]


I think Fearless meant the presidential primaries. He won't get my vote btw and not only because of this.

Hes much too powerful of a senator. Arizonians will never vote him out.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Lee said:
Also appears to be anti-GA. Personally, just one year I wish Americans would throw out every single US Congressdude/Senator up for election.
Click to expand...
He's not particularly strong on the 1st Amendment either, which has been a constant irritation to me.

Back on topic, though, was it his position that we should have user fees, or was he advocating an increase on the fuel tax, a position he would share with our freinds at AOPA?

Updated: Oops, after re-reading the thread I see that the letter was specifically about user fees.
 
Has anyone heard the expected split (Those for User Fees / Those for Fuel Taxes)?
 
Another angle?

Does anyone know the fuel burn/cruise speed/passenger capacity for the most popular commercial planes? I'm curious what the average airline passenger pays in fuel taxes vs. the average GA pilot/passenger for the same distance flight. I suspect that this could turn the tables on who is "paying their fair share", but I don't know for sure.
 
Unfortunately, 1:1 in this case I think "fair share" means "You better start subsidizing the airlines, 'cause it's obvious they can't turn a profit like this!"

Kinda makes you wonder how Southwest manages to run a successful business if the others can't.
 
1:1 Scale said:
Does anyone know the fuel burn/cruise speed/passenger capacity for the most popular commercial planes? I'm curious what the average airline passenger pays in fuel taxes vs. the average GA pilot/passenger for the same distance flight. I suspect that this could turn the tables on who is "paying their fair share", but I don't know for sure.
Click to expand...


I think the only fuel to be up for a tax increase is avgas (100LL) not Jet.
 
smoore said:
Kinda makes you wonder how Southwest manages to run a successful business if the others can't.
Click to expand...
Not defending the airlines (god knows I think they are all scum - necessary scum), just answering your Q on SW.

SW can turn a profit 'cause way back in the day they negotiated a long term sweet deal on Jet fuel. That contract is coming to an end an SW (barring another sweetheart deal) will have to start paying what other airlines are paying for fuel.

As to how much senators care about GA: we're not a big enough constituency to amount to a pimple on a fleas beehind. So what if they **** off a few thousand pilots. Unfortunately, I'm becoming jaded in my old age, but there is nothing in it for them to vote in our favor.

FWIW, Jorge.
 
jmartinez443 said:
SW can turn a profit 'cause way back in the day they negotiated a long term sweet deal on Jet fuel.
Click to expand...
They probably also save a bundle by servicing the cheaper gates at Midway rather than O'Hare, and other airports like that.
 
Following the guidelines from AOPA and EAA, I crafted a thoughtful letter to both my US Rep and US Senator. Got a meaningful reply from the Rep, but Senator Dick Durbin's office gave me a meaningless generic reply, probably from a staffer, that covers any topic anyone mails to them. Something about ,"..these things all require careful study ... yada yada" No mention of the aviation issues at hand of any kind. I forwarded a copy to the AOPA governmental relations folks. I figger the more they know about Senator positions - or lack of knowledge - on the topic the better.

Rupester
Mahomet, IL
RV-9A QB fuse
 
briand said:
I think the only fuel to be up for a tax increase is avgas (100LL) not Jet.
Click to expand...
You are correct, and the Senate version (the bad one) eliminates the tax on jet fuel for the airlines. Because the FAA needs more money to fund NextGen... wait a minute...???
 
Hmmmm....

So I did a little googling, and came up with some numbers for a 737-700. Cruise speed .786M (~582mph), fuel flow 5300 lb/hr (775 gph), and passenger capacity of 145. So we get a mpg number of .75. For a 1000 mile trip, it'll burn roughly 1333 gal., divided among the 145 passengers, each passenger consumed about 9.2 gallons.

Now, run the numbers for any GA plane you want......
 
Concerning McCain, I live in AZ and would gladly help recall him.

By now it should be apparent to anyone older than 6 that representative government is a figment of people's imagination. You can write all the senators you want but until you lay down some serious green you're gonna get squat from government.

My great uncle, Al Capone, is giggling in his grave cause we now have the best guv money can buy.

Concerning McCain, I live in AZ and would gladly help recall him. Whatever respect he earned from his duty in Vietnam has since been squandered. Between user fees and open borders (another wacky idea he backed), we're screwed as a nation.

I'm glad I'm old. Less time to watch our great country get flushed down the toilet by thieves (aka congress).

My bird runs on autogas.
Barry
 
I know I will get flamed for this but here goes......

The cost to run the enroute IFR airspace does not depend on how many seats are on a blip. A blip is a blip. There are those who claim a complete overhaul of ATC aircraft handling is needed. It will cost a big pile of money. If user fees are charged for use of the system it gets paid for by the users. If fuel taxes are raised like AOPA and EAA have led you to believe is a better deal then you will pay anytime you buy 100LL. If users switch in mass to MOGAS a police force will be created to collect taxes on MOGAS for acft use. It is a big mistake to underestimate the taxman.

The RV community would have been least impacted with no GAS tax increase and user fees for IFR airspace. Yes some of us fly IFR but not every flight. More of us burn 100LL.

NBAA, AOPA, and yes even our beloved EAA are in bed with big money on this one. Why?

Technology Disruption.

Whether or not it happens, some at the FAA, Airlines, VLJ promoters, NBAA, AOPA, etc think the VLJs will be so successful they will create gridlock in the sky. (interesting aside the GAO just conducted a study and thinks the VLJ impact will be minimal; who listens to the GAO?)

Maybe it will maybe it won't. The significant point is the above heavy hitters think it will. They are acting on it and they have made you believe you have a dog in the fight.

FAA - knows current enroute system cannot be scaled to handle 2-3X blips and want NextGen and want it funded.

Contractors to build NextGen see a cash cow in the making.

Airlines - know the commercial air service experience is so bad no high margin pax will fly them if a business case can be made for VLJ travel (ala Day Jet) So if NextGen is required to accomodate all the blips, all the blips should pay. Folks we are talking about FL350 not RVs cruising VFR at 8,500.

If you are still ticked off about this all I can say is they succeded. They made you think it was about you when it never was. As a result it looks like you took the bait and will get stuck with part of the bill. Congrats.
:(
 
Last edited:
asav8tor said:
I know I will get flamed for this but here goes......

The cost to run the enroute IFR airspace does not depend on how many seats are on a blip. A blip is a blip. There are those who claim a complete overhaul of ATC aircraft handling is needed.
Click to expand...
Well, I have no idea whether you're right about the cost of enroute IFR services for different types of aircraft being the same (I imagine that the few people that actually have the data aren't talking), but I am skeptical. However, enroute IFR services are not the only thing that the FAA provides. Consider the following:

* Airports
* Center
* Approach/Departure TRACONs
* Class B towers
* Class C and D towers
* Navaid maintenance and checking
* Approach development and monitoring
* FSS
* Aircraft certification
* Airline oversight
* ASOS / AWOS
* Lobbying (e.g., Blakely's travel expenses and salary to go make speeches promoting user fees)

My point is that collecting the majority of the FAA's revenue on a per-IFR-flight basis is as bogus as the current system (what if you burn Mogas?), but it does shift the burden from one use to the other. This whole fight has nothing to do with "fairness", but rather the airlines wanting to put their "competitors" - bizjets and VLJs - out of business by making them more expensive. The airlines don't even pay the taxes - they just collect them from the passengers!

As much as it makes my Libertarian side wince, the Feds do have to coordinate some government functions, and they can't recover the exact costs down the dollar. We don't try and do it for public roads, public services like police (local / state / FBI / DEA) and fire, IRS, etc, so why try it with the FAA? If we applied the "user fee" concept everywhere, the government would send you a bill any time you called the cops - no thanks.

TODR
 
We have plenty of room in the sky for all the airplanes to fly. The bottleneck is runway space. At large airports more runways need to be built for simultaneous takeoffs and landings. As we know it is almost impossible to build additional runways because of all the political red tape.
 
JonathanCook said:
We have plenty of room in the sky for all the airplanes to fly. The bottleneck is runway space. At large airports more runways need to be built for simultaneous takeoffs and landings. As we know it is almost impossible to build additional runways because of all the political red tape.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY right. Air Taxi services will not add to congestion, but relieve it by enabling more people to use the other 4900 or so airports that are not hubs. The airlines are already losing the cream of the crop (first class/business travelers) to GA and they know it; hence the propaganda warfare and throwing large sums of money at congress. I fly for SATSair, < www.satsair.com > an air taxi company that's already been in business almost three years -- (got off the ground using the SR22) and the passengers are coming in droves. We fly about 1800 people per month. Most of our pax are actually going on trips that would have been driven, or just not possible (due to departure point and/or destination being too far from major airport) otherwise, and we're not pulling too many from the airlines; but once the VLJs are fully implemented, the airlines will lose more of the higher paying customers and have to revamp more and more to the LCC type operation.
 
Last edited:
Business Week - Worth Reading

Just read the cover story in the September 10th, 2007 Business Week magazine. Good article and worth reading. Very relevant to this thread.

Regards to all,
Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.