General Aviation in America - RIP

[Yukon]

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?

Not true, Joe. Light aircraft are accomodated all the time, at the expense of efficiency, at large airports. There are only about 800 airports I can land at when I am at work, but there are 12000 I can land at when I am out playing.
Seems like there is really no problem, just easy solutions.

 

[jrsites]

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!).

Why is a landing fee the only way to pay for the services consumed during those three minutes? Isn't that why we pay taxes on the aviation fuel we buy? Now, I see your point. What if we don't buy fuel at LAX after landing there? If I'm all for Federalism, why would I want fuel taxes paid at Wichita to have to go all the way to Washington to be redistributed back to LAX?

Well, unlike the task of protecting citizens, aviation is an inherently borderless activity. We fly precisely because the act of doing so frees us from the confines of Kansas or Louisiana or Los Angeles. Because citizens live in cities that have neatly drawn borders, and those cities are in states with neatly drawn borders, it's easy and convenient to appoint local authorities for serving those citizens' needs.

So, I suppose you could "federalize" the collection of aviation fuel tax. Everything collected on fuel sales in California stays in California. Etc., etc.. But that doesn't account for the fact that a Citation X flight that originates at Van Nuys and ends at White Plains utilizes resources in Albuqerque, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Cleveland along the way. How do the employees in those Centers get paid?

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think the current system is broken. Because of the borderless nature of aviation, it needs to be managed and funded on a national level. You know, that old line in the constitution about "providing for the common good"? Hurricane relief is not, in my opinion, for the "common good" of the nation as a whole. Aviation infrastructure is.

I just don't see the need for user fees because as far as I'm concerned there's already PLENTY of money coming in from fuel taxes. The government just needs to quit hording it to balance their budget, and start using it for what it's always been intended.

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

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?

But he DID stop the user fees. He had the power. He had the majority. Now he doesn't. Oberstar does. And the majority is in no mood to mess around with the doofus in the White House. Follow his lead.

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

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).

"Did America back down when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor?"

Who's with me?

 

[Yukon]

"Did America back down when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor?"

Who's with me?

My favorite movie!

 

[briand]

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?

Every time I hear about how FEMA cards were used to buy Saints season tickets, QUOTE]


It makes me sick every time I see a news story on one of the big three networks where they are talking to Mississippi of New Orleans residents whose homes were destroyed (and still are) by Katrina and acting like their not being fixed yet is because of the federal govt.. A lot of these folks are young and healthy. Pick up a hammer and fix your own #$%@ house. If the insurance co isn't paying for something that they should, then you need to fight YOUR individual battle and leave Washington out of it. Everyone here seems to think they should go to a hotel (uncle sam should cover these costs too) for a couple weeks while the govt. comes in and rebuilds their home for them. Maybe Hugo Chavez will help them out.

 

[DeltaRomeo]

Rules

Geez, you step out for lunch and the Sun explodes <g>.

OK, the rules for posting in my forums can be found at http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm. Please read them and keep the topic on RV's please.

Doug Reeves
Forum Owner

 

[John Courte]

Regardless of all the state vs individual rhetoric, it comes down to the fact that we've already paid for the assets, so why should we pay again? The idea of a corporate welfare check paid to the airlines, along with the keys to our ATC system makes me sick. Get a new business model or get out of the sky. How's this:

"Hi, America. Fuel, security, and payroll are going through the roof, so you're going to have to pay about double for the usual aerial Greyhound, mkay? Thanks."

It baffles me. How much damage can you do to a country in 8 years? The sky is definitely NOT the limit.

 

[DeltaRomeo]

snip.....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).

Let me know how I can help!

b,
dr

 

[ddurakovich]

Geez, you step out for lunch and the Sun explodes <g>.

I'm sure glad I stayed the heck of of this one

 

[jcoloccia]

Let me know how I can help!

b,
dr

Interesting you should ask. The way I see it, the biggest problem we have is there's a few hundred thousand of us versus 300 million folks that don't have a clue about GA and don't care.

If you, or Bob or someone could whip up a link with the issues and what's at stake, and maybe even team up with AOPA and whoever else might care, interested parties could put the link on our web pages, e-mail signatures etc and at least raise awareness in the general population. They may or may not care but I'll bet that at least some would. Think of all the people you send e-mail to in a day that don't know a thing about flying. If everyone just gets one person on board to take an interest, we've doubled our voice. Don't laugh...lots of government initiatives have been defeated by taking little baby steps like this.

It's not a solution but it's unobtrusive. You can either choose to click or not click so it won't be in anybody's face and is much different than an e-mail or snail mail campaign. Effective? I dunno. I don't recall it ever being tried but it's easy enough to try and I don't see how it could hurt. It's like wearing a ribbon.

Still, the best is probably writing and calling your representatives along with the other wonderful suggestion made here and elsewhere. You are a web based thingy, though, so I figured I'd come up with a web based idea

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

The best link is the AOPA one they set up here. The best thing you can do now is just pick up your phone and call your congressperson.

Do NOT -- and I can't emphasize this strongly enough -- use any templates for what the letter should say. Write about what flying means to you, try to work in the benefits, and stress the safety of the current system and how safety, itself, is at stake here. Make it clear that GA already pays for the system.

Keep it positive.

I prefer a handwritten letter, myself. Email is too easily deleted, and after about the first 5, those form letters don't get read.

If you see your congressman/congresswoman is home for some ribbon-cutting event. Go. And buttonhole him/her.

The most effective tool here -- aside from facts -- is personal contact.

After you do these, buddy up to the local reporter, as I suggested earlier, and bring 'em out for a ride, or have him/her get together with you and a few other pilots. You'll get a story out of it and if the reporter is anywhere near half-decent, your congressperson will be asked for reaction and he/she will have to respond.

The trick right now is to get this component of the budget in play. The sooner... the better.

 

[brianwallis]

same

Let me know how I can help!

b,
dr

Same... I will do everything in my power to help. I've seen the general aviation in Germany and it is dead... except for a few ultralight/glider things.... it's so sad
Brian

HEY///// DOES ANYONE HAVE A LINK TO A DATABASE THAT SHOWS ALL THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR (politicians)EVERYBODY IN THEIR HOME STATE?
Thanks
Brian

 

[jrsites]

And the majority is in no mood to mess around with the doofus in the White House. Follow his lead.

Am I understanding correctly that Oberstar and the Democrats will oppose user fees simply because the president supports them? I'm not so sure I'd want my elected representatives acting in such a manner. Oberstar was elected by his constituents to represent their views on issues. The fact of the matter is that if you were to describe user fees to Oberstar's (largely Democrat, I'm sure) supporters, explaining to them that

User fees are a way of getting money from individuals who are able to afford to own and fly a private airplane, and those funds would be used to pay for the aviation infrastructure that those individuals utilize, thus freeing up General Fund monies to be spent on education or healthcare or other important programs,

I would venture to say that most voters in the Democrat base would see that as a good thing. In general, Democrat politicians and their constituents see it as a good thing to make the "winners of life's lottery" (read "those rich enough to own a plane") pay more money where possible.

Now even if Oberstar doesn't view the situation in this light, he is but one Democrat in a majority of Democrats. And I just don't have much confidence that most of the rest of Democrats won't see User Fees as a good thing. And, of course, as I mentioned before Oberstar has a pretty large constituency he is accountable to in the employees of Northwest Airlines. We all know where NWA stands on the issue. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I just don't think I can afford to continue flying as a hobby if user fees enter the equation. But everything about the Democrats' M.O. tells me that User Fees is something they would actually embrace. But who knows. Everything about the Republicans' M.O. had told me that they would be against User Fees. So maybe there is hope.

Unless, of course, that whole "Oppose it just because the President supports it." thing applies, which would be promising for aviation, but a sad commentary on the state of our nation.

 

[brianwallis]

links

http://www.senate.gov/

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga

Here are the senate house and governors links
Start writing
No form letters
Visit in person if possible
GO!!!

 

[DeltaRomeo]

OK, I'm on it. I'll make the AOPA site regarding the debate much more visible on the VAF site (starting as the lead story on Wednesday).

Anyone who calls me a 'web based thingy' certainly gets my attention .

Best always,
Doug

Interesting you should ask. The way I see it, the biggest problem we have is there's a few hundred thousand of us versus 300 million folks that don't have a clue about GA and don't care.

If you, or Bob or someone could whip up a link with the issues and what's at stake, and maybe even team up with AOPA and whoever else might care, interested parties could put the link on our web pages, e-mail signatures etc and at least raise awareness in the general population. They may or may not care but I'll bet that at least some would. Think of all the people you send e-mail to in a day that don't know a thing about flying. If everyone just gets one person on board to take an interest, we've doubled our voice. Don't laugh...lots of government initiatives have been defeated by taking little baby steps like this.

It's not a solution but it's unobtrusive. You can either choose to click or not click so it won't be in anybody's face and is much different than an e-mail or snail mail campaign. Effective? I dunno. I don't recall it ever being tried but it's easy enough to try and I don't see how it could hurt. It's like wearing a ribbon.

Still, the best is probably writing and calling your representatives along with the other wonderful suggestion made here and elsewhere. You are a web based thingy, though, so I figured I'd come up with a web based idea

 

[DC YXer]

The best link is the AOPA one they set up here. The best thing you can do now is just pick up your phone and call your congressperson.

Do NOT -- and I can't emphasize this strongly enough -- use any templates for what the letter should say. Write about what flying means to you, try to work in the benefits, and stress the safety of the current system and how safety, itself, is at stake here. Make it clear that GA already pays for the system.

Keep it positive.

I prefer a handwritten letter, myself. Email is too easily deleted, and after about the first 5, those form letters don't get read.

If you see your congressman/congresswoman is home for some ribbon-cutting event. Go. And buttonhole him/her.

The most effective tool here -- aside from facts -- is personal contact.

After you do these, buddy up to the local reporter, as I suggested earlier, and bring 'em out for a ride, or have him/her get together with you and a few other pilots. You'll get a story out of it and if the reporter is anywhere near half-decent, your congressperson will be asked for reaction and he/she will have to respond.

The trick right now is to get this component of the budget in play. The sooner... the better.

I've been working in national politics for about 15 years, and I just wanted to chime in (again) to say that IMHO everything Bob wrote above is 110% on the mark. What will move Congressional opinions on this issue is evidence of genuine, grassroots, constituent opposition to these user fees - stacks of form letters generated by "astro-turf" lobbying efforts (usually) don't hurt, but every single thoughtful, polite, handwritten, CONSTRUCTIVE letter (or better still, that "buttonhole 'em at a ribbon-cutting event" approach Bob described) will outweigh a couple hundred angry, ascerbic, disrespectful, computer-generated form letters every time.

Keep in mind, there aren't going to be handwritten letters like this coming from the airlines side of the issue - this is one our side can and should win. As the saying goes, "Keep those cards and letters coming!"

 

[jrsites]

And the other shoe drops....

Just read an article in the WSJ which states that, in addition to user fees, there would be an increase in the fuel tax. That came straight from Administrator Blakey.

This whole issue is so convoluted. I still don't think the whole story is out there. The WSJ article makes it sound like user fees would only apply to corporate jets and airliners. Very little mention about the impact on GA.

 

[gorbak]

It's a numbers game

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.

On the other hand, lets look at this as an opportunity.

I do not believe the "many million Joe Six Pack's" are going to write their congressman about why GA should pay with users fees. And how many airline companies are there? They are spending cash on lobbyists.
The numbers support General Aviation IF each pilot, friend and spouse picks up a pen and blank piece of paper and writes a five minute note to their congressman and request they vote against user fees from General Aviation.

It is a numbers game. While it may look like "we" are outgunned, I actually like the odds if each of us does our part.

Now go write a letter, address it to your perspective congressmen and congresswomen, address the envelopes, place the stamp on it and mail it before the weekend is over. I am writing mine now. And just so this counts as RV related....I want to be able to fly my RV9-A as unrestricted as possible in the future.

Pat Garboden
Ozark, MO

 

[Dgamble]

The WSJ article makes it sound like user fees would only apply to corporate jets and airliners.

Well, at first. Think Alternative Minumum Tax, or just look at our northern neighbor for a vision of our future:

Facing growing debt, private Nav Canada ATC considers user fees for GA. With more than $100 million in its budget to make up, Canada's privately owned air traffic control company said it may start assessing user fees on general aviation aircraft to close the gap.

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.

(http://www.ipilot.com/newsletter/060220.html)

It's $5 for me to land at Burke-Lakefront today, and I consider that a bargain.

Now ATC services, that's a different kettle of fish and I don't know how that's working out for our Canadian friends.

 

[PJSeipel]

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

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

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.

 

[Kevin Horton]

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.

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

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.

 

[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

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

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.

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

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?

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

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.

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

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.

 

[briand]

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.

 

[jrsites]

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.

I do understand that Oberstar has been a consistent friend of General Aviation. And I am encouraged by the fact that it is he who is the new Chair of the transportation and infrastructure committee. I guess what I'm not expressing very well is my fear that Oberstar's voice against user fees may end up being a lone one. My sense is that the number of politicians (on either side of the aisle) who would support user fees is greater than those who would oppose them.

ook, 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.

Absolutely, positively, 100% agree. And this is at the heart of my fears. Will Oberstar be able to pursuade enough Democrats to go against the traditional values of their party? Will he be able to pursuade enough Republicans to go against the president? Again, given that the easy, intellectually dishonest way to couch the argument is that "We're simply asking those well-off airplane owners to pay for the resources they use so that we can use general budget money for other causes", and that the majority of everyday Americans and their elected representatives probably don't care to know any more about the issue than that, what are the chances it will receive an honest debate from anyone on either side of the aisle?

And I'm in complete agreement with the rest of your response to me. I just hope the Honorable Mr. Oberstar can find a way to get that message through to his colleagues. Or that there are enough of them that care about the impact User Fees will have on General Aviation.

 

[JimLogajan]

FAA's burden per pilot: $22,600/pilot/year

The FAA presents an enormous fiscal burden to aviation ? as revealed below. Consider the following metrics, based on data from the FAA itself:

The 2006 fiscal year budget request for the FAA was $13.78 billion [1]. Of that, $9.746 billion was for "safety" operations [1].

In 2005 there were 609,737 active airmen certificates [2]. Dividing the FAA budget by the number of airmen yields rather astounding values for the per-pilot burden:

$15,984/pilot/year for "safety" operations, or
$22,600/pilot/year for all FAA operations.

Let's look at the FAA budget burden another way. In 2005 there were 224,352 active general aviation aircraft [3] and at least 6810 air carrier aircraft [4]. This yields the following FAA burden for each aircraft:

$42,161/aircraft/year for "safety" operations, or
$59,611/aircraft/year for all FAA operations.

Another way to divide the FAA budget is on a per flight hour basis. There were 26,982,383 GA flight hours in 2005 [3] and 18,606,824 air carrier revenue flight hours for the 12 months ended October 2005 [5]. This yields at least 45,589,207 flight hours, with some fraction outside controlled airspace. Even if all those flight hours had been within ATC, the cost per flight hour burden is still alarmingly high:

$214/flight hour/year for "safety" operations, or
$302/flight hour/year for all FAA operatons.

Another way to normalize the FAA budget is to compare the approximate number of controller-hours with the approximate number of flight hours. In 2006 there were about 14,618 FAA controllers [6]. If one assumes a 35 hour work week and 48 weeks per year for each controller, then one gets 24,558,240 total controller hours. Dividing the 45,589,207 flight hours by controller hours yields about 1.86 flight hours per controller hour. It is as if each flight had to share the burden of half a controller with one other flight. But there are in fact 44,865 people employed by the FAA [6] so the burden is even worse.

There are other metrics by which one may judge fiscal effectiveness of the FAA, such as number of ATC handled landing and takeoff operations, or by number of public or private use airports, and so on, and all are equally depressing. The objective here is simply to draw attention to a federal system that is fiscally flawed.

It seems therefore not only premature to posit "user fees," it is beside the point. Since the government excludes itself from market force influences by its monopoly of police force, the imposition of "user fees" impacts only ATC demand side, but does nothing to control an inefficient or technologically backward ATC supply side. Only if the ATC system is made responsive to market forces and decoupled from political manipulation would it be reasonable and fair to posit payment for actual usage. It would be a sad day indeed were a pilot flying from one private airstrip through class G airspace to another private airstrip forced to pay $300/hour via gas tax and/or usage fees (for using no ATC or FAA services at all) in order to subsidize air carriers traveling through class A airspace or otherwise perpetuate an inefficient traffic control system.

That said, why the heck is it costing the FAA vastly more than $200 per flight hour to "control" each flight? If the FAA applies user fees proportionate to actual usage, I expect GA could adapt. But the FAA is a government entity and if usage of its service drops, it is very unlikely that its budget would be decreased to match. Instead the burden would be increased on those still forced to use the services. Since air carriers would most likely be the ones in most need of FAA ATC services, they would use their political clout to force even non-users to pay into the system.

[1] http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aba/budgets_brief/media/bib2006.pdf

[2] http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/...ivil_airmen_statistics/2005/media/air1-05.xls

[3] http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/.../general_aviation/CY2005/media/FAA_2005_1.pdf

[4] http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airframe_cost_report

[5] http://www.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/index.xml#TwelveMonthsSystem

[6] http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/Combined_FY_2006_FAA_PAR_Final_v6_12-14-2006.pdf

 

[brianwallis]

summary

I am asking for help from a special person. We need somebody who is familiar with the FAA finances and other items to please list for us a laundry list of items that we could talk about and be factual. This list hopefully could include some hard numbers and anything else helpful. We could then post this list and write our politicians with this information. Thank you for your time and patience. The world is smaller than we think... I bet some of us are related to or friends with somebody in the FAA. Lets use those connections to get as much useful information from them as possible. I bet instead of six degrees of seperation between anyone in the world.. in ours... it's only two. This is no joke. I've seen the general aviation in Germany with the user fee system and you have to afford helicopter rates here in America to fly c150's in Germany... not kidding. It's so sad......
Brian Wallis

www.senate.gov

www.house.gov

www.nga.org

 

[osxuser]

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.

I'll dig this post up to note that the above is a great way to get yanked out of your airplane at the business end of an M-16. I've seen it happen at VNY for a guy that forgot his N-number changed after new paint...

 

[iwannarv]

After seeing the VAF homepage today and seeing the note on writing to our elected officials, I think I'm gonna do it (educating myself a bit more on the funding issue). Being 18 and a pilot I hope that some higher officials will take notice to how this will affect the GA future for young'ns like me. I'm definitely going to write one to the state senator for our area (happens to be a cousin of the family), and another to a U.S. senator for our area (happens to be a family friend). Maybe I can get somebody to take notice! It is important to get younger people involved in aviation, but it is crucial that we get young pilots (teenagers) who usually would not write to an elected official involved in the letter-writing process.

 

[idleup]

Let me know how I can help!

b,
dr

Doug, how about making a form letter (or maybe a couple of them so they arent all the same) that members can print out, sign and mail to their representatives? and make it easy for them to get their addresses.

I have found that people will be way more likely to do that if a form letter is provided vs. them having to write one up...

 

[PJSeipel]

Doug, how about making a form letter (or maybe a couple of them so they arent all the same) that members can print out, sign and mail to their representatives? and make it easy for them to get their addresses.

I have found that people will be way more likely to do that if a form letter is provided vs. them having to write one up...

Form letters are likely to go in the trash. On this issue it is important to be personal! If we're too lazy to hand-write a note to our senators and congressmen, then we deserve whatever we get.

I do, however, think that a list of facts would be very helpful. Things like the fact that the FAA can't account for $5 billion or the number of GA flights that use services vice the number that don't. Things that would help us write our letters and make sure that any facts we choose to present are correct.

Personally, I'm not going to write until I've seen the reauthorization bill so I know what they're really proposing.

PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032

 

[Junior]

Doug, how about making a form letter (or maybe a couple of them so they arent all the same) that members can print out, sign and mail to their representatives? and make it easy for them to get their addresses.

I have found that people will be way more likely to do that if a form letter is provided vs. them having to write one up...

Ditto That!

 

[N395V]

I have written personal letters to my 2 Senators and the Representative for my district as well as to the representatives of the other districts in my state.

The only statistics I quoted them were to recap that in the last election many of them survived only by the skin of their teeth and that AOPA was 400,000 strong. I also suggested to them that user fees in the wake of a no new taxes pledge was a bit of an oxymoron. Also drew a correlation between what the luxury tax in the past did to employment in the boating industry and what the user fees will do to GA. Had to do several rewrites to get all the vulgar words out of the first drafts.

 

[Mitch757]

Another Attack on GA

Aeronews.net is reporting today that the AEA (Aircraft Electronics Association) has filed comments with the FAA to "upgrade" the requirements for A&P mechanics to standards similar to Part 145 to be in line with "ICAO standards". If they get their way, this will put many little shops out of business and dramatically raise the cost of any work done by a certified mechanic...if you can find one.

The link: http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav...e5df727-c8b4-4095-921d-0436da18838d&Dynamic=1

Mitch Garner
RV4 flying (for now)

 

[attackpilot]

What is ALPA's Position on the Proposed Budget

Hello All:

I would like to know the Airline Pilot's Association's (ALPA) position on the proposed budget so I wrote them an email last night. I know the airline managment is for it because it will ease their burden. However, most airline pilots learned to fly in general aviation and probably worked there as well. I would hope that the pilots' would be against this budget because it hurts the little guy. How are we going to grow future pilots when it will be so expensive that only people that can afford polo can participate?

I also think that the user fees for landings and instrument approaches will not get the money that the FAA is predicting. Pilots just will stop going to airports where there are fees. Perhaps that is their intention.

In the end, I think this budget will hinder the overall safey record because people will stretch their fuel because it is going to be more expensive, they will not get wx briefs if there is a charge, and they will not commit to IFR flight if they have to pay for an approach and landing fee.

Joe Hutchison
RV-10 Tailcone
AH-64D Instructor Pilot

 

[AZtailwind]

pay and pay

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

and we pay for the bill colletor at the gates also- "Inefficient government bureaucracy" mean anything? That must be OK with you- And also the AVgas tax is a free tax for you? out of pocket change right? (and I'm just warming up...)

 

[Brian Denk]

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!

And to think Dubya is *supposedly* an ex-aviator (Air Guard). We all know his DAD is one. Why we're seen as such a burden to the big iron I just cannot understand. Where do the pilots for the airlines COME FROM!?? If it would cost three times what it does today for my son to get trained and ready for the majors, I would just have to say, "sorry, that ship left port years ago. Try running for public office. There's lots of money there and you don't have to be accountable for any of it."

Back in my senior year of high school, I had a classmate in a really neat aviation science course. She was from Germany and came to the states for the sole purpose of getting her license. Her dad was quite well off and could afford a full year of expenses for her to be here, get her high school diploma AND a PPL. He was not, however, rich enough to afford the same in his own country.

Tragic.

 

[Dakbuster]

Guys you have to fight this to the end.
we have user charges in New Zealand, it hurts hard.
A recent 1.5 hour IFR flight cost more in landing fees airways fees, and fuel taxes. than the operating cost of the Piper Aztec.
Good Luck I sincerely hope you win.

 

[jdmunzell]

Hello All:

I would like to know the Airline Pilot's Association's (ALPA) position on the proposed budget so I wrote them an email last night. I know the airline managment is for it because it will ease their burden. However, most airline pilots learned to fly in general aviation and probably worked there as well. I would hope that the pilots' would be against this budget because it hurts the little guy. How are we going to grow future pilots when it will be so expensive that only people that can afford polo can participate?...

Well, I can't answer for the union because I don't know their official position on this topic, but I can tell you my position as a card carrying ALPA member and an airline pilot. I am most totally against sticking it to the little guys! My background is totally GA and I obviously still have quite a passion for it!! I live for my passion as well as quite a few other airline pilots I know.

Granted, there are a number of airline types that came from the military and really do not know anything about GA, so they may or may not have a position on this. If anything, they are probably more prone to believing GA user fees would be a good thing because it taxes the "rich"...or some such nonsense. It's not really their fault, because they just don't know any better.
That's where I come in...

This story is now front page headlines, and it gives me the opportunity to talk to these guys about general aviation and about our side of the story.
I know many of my airline brothers feel the same way I do!

 

[frankh]

Good for you Jeff

Keep spreading the gospel, GA is the primary feeder of pilots to the airlines and the industry as a whole feeds a lot of mouths in this country...I wonder what percentage of the worlds total fleet of privately owned aircraft are in the USA vs the rest of the world?....And then ask why.

Part of the answer is surely there is more money here, but the other part is the system is GA friendly.

Sure would be a shame to kill off a thriving industry.

Frank

 

[osxuser]

Aeronews.net is reporting today that the AEA (Aircraft Electronics Association) has filed comments with the FAA to "upgrade" the requirements for A&P mechanics to standards similar to Part 145 to be in line with "ICAO standards". If they get their way, this will put many little shops out of business and dramatically raise the cost of any work done by a certified mechanic...if you can find one.

The link: http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=8e5df727-c8b4-4095-921d-0436da18838d&Dynamic=1

Mitch Garner
RV4 flying (for now)

They have been tying to do this for the last 10 years that I know of. All currently certficated A&P's would be grandfathered in to all catagories, but I don't see this happening that soon. Who knows with the craziness the FAA has been doing recently?