RV6_flyer

RV6_flyer

Well Known Member
Benefactor
Note to DR and Moderators. IF this is considered political, DELETE it.
[ed. I bet we can keep the polital stuff out no problem, Gary. dr]

Got the following email from the White House. (not Michael "Moose" White)

--- insert paste ---
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why We Need Aviation User Fees
[/FONT] [FONT='Arial','sans-serif']By Dana Hyde, Associate Director for General Government Programs, Office of Management and Budget[/FONT]
Thank you for signing the petition "Take Aviation User Fees Off the Table." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov and your concerns about user fees in a challenging economy.
In a challenging budget environment, the Obama Administration believes it’s essential that those who benefit from our world-class aviation system help pay for its ongoing operation. And we want to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share. For example, under current law, a large commercial aircraft flying from Los Angeles to San Francisco pays between twenty-one and thirty-three times the fuel taxes paid by a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same FAA air traffic services. This is why the Administration proposed to establish a new surcharge for air traffic services.
The proposed $100 per flight fee would generate an estimated $11 billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit and more equitably sharing the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community. All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
We appreciate your petition's acknowledgment that there needs to be an increased user contribution to aviation system funding in the current fiscal climate, and we recognize that some would prefer to raise the tax rate on aviation fuel. At the same time, we have concluded that a $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to bear the cost of this essential service.
As we work to get our Nation back on a sustainable fiscal path, the Administration is making tough choices across the Federal budget and asking everyone to do their fair share. We recognize these shared sacrifices are not easy, but together with investments in our economic growth and job creation, they will make us stronger and more competitive for the future. We look forward to working collaboratively with the Congress and the aviation stakeholder community on this issue, and thank you again for your constructive input.


--- end paste ---


I am not happy about this.





[/FONT][/FONT]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, that is bad, very bad.

It is just the start and soon they will be saying that C-150 using flight following should pay the same as a biz jet.
 
No fees for us...

RV6_flyer said:
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
Click to expand...

"Slippery slope" arguments notwithstanding, this doesn't affect us.

-jon
 
Depends how the term "user" is defined. If we continue to think of the "user" as the person sitting up front and pushing knobs and buttons, then no (for the time being). But the fact is, most of the population enjoys a benefit through aviation in some way. Lots of those cheap goods found at WalMart get here by air... There are MILLIONS of users of the NAS beyond those of us who merely drive.

Trying to divide us up into the haves/have not?s is a classic exercise in misdirection.

Don't fall for it - we need to stick together!
 
Last edited:
RV6_flyer said:
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
Click to expand...

So what does "public aircraft" mean? It looks like this measure might only affect (target?) privately owned and operated jet aircraft. While it doesn't affect me (yet) it certainly seems unjust. Once passed, it's a simple "ammendment" to remove the piston aircraft exemption.

Large jets pay more in taxes because they burn more fuel but they also have more seats and generate more revenue. Seems fair to me....:rolleyes:
 
I received this email as well. The content not withstanding, I am really taken aback that the White House sees it as appropriate to solicit support for their agenda from individuals who have publicly denounced that very agenda.

As far as the content of the solicitation, this idea is similar to the taxation of yachts back in the Carter administration days. In case anyone may be too young to remember that era, the taxation of yacht manufacturers just about caused a recession in and of itself. OK, that may be an exaggeration. Really, though, this taxation caused an entire industry to shut down over night. Thousands of people lost their jobs within weeks of that governmental tax change. The wealthy yacht owners simply shifted their purchase power to other countries in the world who were manufacturing yachts. The decision did nothing but hurt the yacht industry, the workers who built them and ultimately the US economy as a whole. The government tax coffers did not see a windfall from all of those wealthy yacht owners paying into this new Luxury Tax. They simply avoided the tax completely by not buying yachts from American yacht manufacturers. After several years of this, Congress finally wised up and repealed the luxury tax they had imposed. As soon as they did there was a swift uptick in the economy. I am not saying the repeal of the luxury tax caused prosperity but it sure helped.

Aviation user fees on the "Wealthy Jet Owners and Operators" will have the same effect. I would bet the government will see little if any benefit from such a user fee. In fact, I would wager it will COST them dearly if they implement it!
 
mosquito said:
mosquito said:
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
Click to expand...

"Slippery slope" arguments notwithstanding, this doesn't affect us.

-jon
Click to expand...

The creation of an infrastructure to levy and collect an entirely new aviation tax would actually probably affect you, at least indirectly, and really would be a slippery slope. Once created, it would likely grow.
 
Joke

I really thought this might be a joke at first. Then I saw that RVbySDI said he got the same petition. So I went to www.whitehouse.com and found this petition with this very same response. Are you kidding me "And we want to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share." Not hardly, they just want more money by going to the low hanging fruit.
 
Mile High Relic said:
The creation of an infrastructure to levy and collect an entirely new aviation tax would actually probably affect you, at least indirectly, and really would be a slippery slope. Once created, it would likely grow.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, that may be true... I just meant this isn't a proposal to directly charge RV pilots $100 every time we call ATC. At first skim, I missed the blanked piston exemption... and I'll be cleaning coffee out of my keyboard for weeks. :)

-jon
 
$11 billion / $100 per flight flight / 10 years / 12 months per year = 916,666 turbine GA flights per month that would generate this projected revenue. Whoever dreamed these numbers up is smoking crack cocaine.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV6_flyer
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.


Why not Canada to Canada flights? If they overfly the US then they should pay a user fee just like I pay a fee to Canada today when I fly a USA to USA flight and overfly Canada. (I'm not beating up on our good friends from Canada, I love their Alexander Keith's :D ). It's just a fairness thing in this crazy proposal.
 
A foot in the door

It's obvious from this response that the current administration is intent on forcing user fees on General Avaition, starting with corporate jets. This response is full of holes. He points out that the airlines pay between twenty-one and thirty-three times the amount of fuel taxes, conveniently omitting the fact that airline jets carry a lot more than twenty-one to thirty-three times the number of people on average, making the airline contribution in terms of cost per seat-mile less than corporate jets, not more. He also talks about our world class aviation system, but doesn't mention that this system was built on the foundation of the contributions made by General Aviation (among others) with the present system of fuel taxes paid by everyone who flies. That's how it got to be world class in the first place, not with user fees. There is no mention of elliminating the exhorbitant waste in Government spending, or making the DOT/FAA more efficient in terms of personnel and productivity. This is a pathetic attempt by the bean counters to try to justify the imposition of more taxes (whatever they're called). The sad part is that they might get away with it.

This nonsense could be avoided by having 500,000 General Aviation pilots write to the elected representatives, but as we all know, the Universal Law of Apathy will prevent that from happening.
 
Right on Ken!

CFI1513840 said:
It's obvious from this response that the current administration is intent on forcing user fees on General Avaition, starting with corporate jets. This response is full of holes. He points out that the airlines pay between twenty-one and thirty-three times the amount of fuel taxes, conveniently omitting the fact that airline jets carry a lot more than twenty-one to thirty-three times the number of people on average, making the airline contribution in terms of cost per seat-mile less than corporate jets, not more. He also talks about our world class aviation system, but doesn't mention that this system was built on the foundation of the contributions made by General Aviation (among others) with the present system of fuel taxes paid by everyone who flies. That's how it got to be world class in the first place, not with user fees. There is no mention of elliminating the exhorbitant waste in Government spending, or making the DOT/FAA more efficient in terms of personnel and productivity. This is a pathetic attempt by the bean counters to try to justify the imposition of more taxes (whatever they're called). The sad part is that they might get away with it.

This nonsense could be avoided by having 500,000 General Aviation pilots write to the elected representatives, but as we all know, the Universal Law of Apathy will prevent that from happening.
Click to expand...


And the fact that the airlines pay a lot less per gallon for fuel and handling services then Business aircraft! Have they spent $12 per gallon? Or how about a handling fee of $1000 ? Or catering bills with a $200 surcharge and $200 in taxes on catering? Oh, and then there's the hundreds of dollars for TSA screening.

And least we forget about how much of our salaries (selling flightline and collecting prop wash)we spent training in GA to become pilots all along paying for the system they now want us to pay even more for.

Wait, I have to go ..... and pay Europe for "carbon credits":mad:
 
Looking for rich guys to get money

Sorry moderators, but I have to rant. please delete if you must.

First the bussiness majors looked at the riches guys in America, the doctors, and formed HMOs to skim thier dollars. (Doctors aren't rich anymore). Now it appears pilots are the next "rich group" looking to be taxed. I think the RV guys and other homebuilders are some of the poorest "rich Guys". Maybe we should just tax the Bonanza drivers?

I going back to building my RV. NORAD. Don't need to talk to anyone. By the way, heard the airlines can't find decide pilot recruits, wonder why.
 
rocketbob said:
$11 billion / $100 per flight flight / 10 years / 12 months per year = 916,666 turbine GA flights per month that would generate this projected revenue. Whoever dreamed these numbers up is smoking crack cocaine.
Click to expand...

From this source:

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/

There are about 9,115,000 airline departures annually in the USA. Multiply that by 10 years and $100/flight you get $9.115 Billion. That explains most of the projected $11 billion USD over ten years.

Logical questions:

1) They mention deficit reduction. Why are air passengers being asked to pay for excessive US government spending via the air transportation system?

2) How much money is raised via various fees and taxes on passenger tickets and Jet-A/100LL?

3) What does it cost to operate this first class air transportation system?

4) Is any money diverted from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to the US general fund? The reason that needs to be asked is that some time ago I read that some money raised from US National Parks entry fees was transferred to the General Fund. Then we hear that the National Parks do not have enough money to maintain the parks. Is there a logical solution here that does not involve raising Park entrance fees?

I may be missing things but you can see that the glossy verbiage in the original post is hardly an honest and objective justification for raising fees on non-piston aircraft.

Of course I could say sure...it does not impact me. But you need to analyze these issues much deeper than done so far before making an educated assessment/decision.

I have not read all the links within the link below, but it should provide some education on the topic:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/
 
Last edited:
CFI1513840 said:
It's obvious from this response that the current administration is intent on forcing user fees on General Avaition, starting with corporate jets.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear -- the last four administrations have pushed for user fees.
 
Do it today

I have just violated the Universal Law of Apathy by writing to my Senators and Congressman opposing the currently proposed user fees. I would encourage everyone who reads this to do the same. I'm and old f-rt and I can probably squeeze out my share of the remaining time of aviation freedom in the good old USA before it's stomped to bits by the government, but I would like to see it kept alive and healthy for future generations. Please write to your representatives.
 
Last edited:
I deleted this text.

Read the posting rules folks.

Thanks,

dr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aviation trust fund

OK I read somewhere that the Aviation trust fund has a very large balance, but this amount comes off the deficit, so the more money spent out of the aviation trust fund, the larger the deficit for that year. Kind of ironic isn't it. The aviation trust fund is positive, cant spend it because it would look bad, so we just tax aviation more. In all honesty, I haven't checked this year so I do not know if the aviation trust fund today is still positive, but I'll bet a whole weeks salary ($.25) that it still is. JMHO
 
We have been spared from users fees before.
Congress, both parties, have an interest in the health of general aviation.
Many are pilots and nearly all use GA to reach constituents in their communities.
We need to turn the heat on congress, they are our most reliable partner(s).
 
fees

I deleted this text.

Read the posting rules folks.

Thanks,

dr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.