Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 55): Carriers like Big Sky, Commutair, Horizon, etc. will still find plenty of uses for aircraft under 50 seats in the foreseeable future long past 7 years from now.

Not without subsidies.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 53): You play in the system, you pay for doing so. Must be nice doing so for free.

7E7, I respect your opinion, however, I still disagree-

I don't feel entitled. It by far isn't free. Don't assume GA pilots (including myself) get off without paying, cause we pay quite a bit. I pay already in fuel costs. I pay for check rides, and the standardized testing that the FAA already requires. I pay ticket taxes every time I travel for work and for pleasure on commercial aircraft. I also have the privilege of paying sales, state, federal and local taxes on business and personal income and products (including a lot of aviation related items).

I didn't say it should be free (see post 14), I'm not opposed to paying additional fuel taxes, it is an easy method to collect the tax, and in many ways will encourage fuel conservation and will be better w/r/t environmental issues. If I fly more, I pay more. In the car analogy, since I drive more, I pay more to fix the roads. The user fee analogy would be car tab increase because the truckers don't want to pay for their damage to the roads, even though they do the majority of damage.

If they just raised fuel prices, Airlines can probably find a way to deduct this cost, or will pass this expense to the consumer. If I own a GA aircraft and use it for business purposes, I might probably find some magical loophole to deduct the new costs, or will have to weigh the economics of flying to keep my business going. As an operator of a flight school, I might have a harder time with the new fees and fuel costs, to still make some sort of profit- might have to charge even more, or close my doors. As a student, I'll have to suck it up and pay even more to become a professional or private pilot. Ultimately, the consumer will pay, one way or another. Any increase in fees (user and/or fuel) won't encourage growth in aviation.

The absolute major concern about user fees is safety. Ever notice when they build a new toll road, people work pretty hard not to use it? They'll drive for miles to avoid paying the toll. After some time, and some frustration, they may finally give up and start paying it, but if they can save $4 a day, it is worth it. They may drive on roads that are worse, or they may spend more in fuel costs to save that $4, but they do it.

In the GA world, one of the largest killer of people is weather. Flying into weather or into deteriorating conditions kills a substantial amount of people a year. Now picture Joe pilot decides to not spend the $15 for a weather brief, when he always checked it when it was free....

If the FAA heads down this path, I really hope this idea migrates to all sorts of areas. I'd love not to pay taxes for schools, since I don't have any children in them. And hey, I'd be willing to pay a user fee to use a bike trail and a hiking trail, since I use those. But since I don't use the dog parks, why should I pay for everyone else's privilege to use them? Since I don't personally use the Military, can I not pay for that?

Implementation of the user fee structure opens up Pandora's box. Oversight authority would be removed from Congress and placed into the hands of an appointed board who will be free to set the fee structure in any manner they desire. The initial round of fees will almost certainly be presented as "reasonable" and "fair" in order to gain acceptance. But historically, once a fee structure is put into place it almost inevitably grows. The number of airports included in the fee structure will inevitably be expanded. There must also be a significant expenditure of funds to create the infrastructure to collect user fees. Based on the US government's track record that program will be late and over budget which will lead to higher fees. Eventually, we'll have a system just like Germany and Australia where only the rich can afford to fly.

The current system works well and doesn't need to be scrapped. My impression is that change is advocated by short-sighted airline execs who probably only have their own wallet in mind. Since lower taxes for the airlines translates into higher profits in the short term (assuming oil costs stay flat) that will directly affect year-end bonuses. Not to get into class warfare, but ask yourself who typically benefits the greatest from company bonus pools? Now cross reference that with who's behind the quest for change and you're likely to see some close connections. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely for airlines making profits, but I know that people at the bottom of the organization aren't going to nearly benefit as much as those at the top. If the proposed changes go through then a lot more people are going to be hurting than will benefit.

Finally, if we're going to discuss the subject of fairness in the tax system then us New Yorkers, who only get back 84 cents of each dollar we send away to the federal government, deserve a huge refund (nearly 31 billion dollars in FY 2005). Furthermore, in the name of fairness, why not set up a program for user fee's on the highways? I use mass transit every day to get to work - why not set up a system where private drivers pay more to use the highway infrastructure so that truckers can pay less?

Starting to assign user fees in the name of "fairness" is a really bad idea. The current system works for the common good and not for specific individuals or groups. I don't see why we need to change it in order to enrich a few.

The day welfare recipients are required to pay their "Fair share" for using the welfare system is the same day I'll go along with the proposed GA tax and fee increases. Until then, it would be a good idea to force the politicians to restore to the AIP fund all the tax money they've "appropriated" for other purposes, which at last count, was in excess of 7 billion dollars.

Quoting RaginMav (Reply 45): On the safety note - sad will be the day we begin to hear of the rash of accidents that result from perfectly capable instrument rated pilots either 1) scud running to avoid paying a fee for filing a flight plan or 2) Flying IMC without an IFR flight plan to avoid the same fee. It will be a lot like prohibition...

This happened alot after the ATC strike in 1981. I agree, it WILL happen again, and with the growth in traffic over 26 years bad events are more likley to happen.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 58): Oversight authority would be removed from Congress

They already don't like that part.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 58): once a fee structure is put into place it almost inevitably grows.

Yup. The lower level ATC towers that were contracted out have, in the long run, proven more costly than agency operated facilities. This data is available in numerous Congressional oversite websites, and the DOT OIG reports.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 58): advocated by short-sighted airline execs who probably only have their own wallet in mind.

And who have demonstrated they cannot operate a major corporation for profit. Many of them have repeatedly failed. they like the user fee idea. What's that tell us.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 44): Depends on if you consider a 737 vs. a prop that takes up the same approach airspace at a major airport resulting in a 148 passenger capacity depletion.

Woah. This shows a huge discrimation on your part against not only GA but smaller aircraft as well. Anyone who knows aviation realizes that the small planes are just as important as the big ones. Chances are that the 737 captain has a Bonanza he flies on his days off or even on the way to work. Also according to your logic flight training should take a second seat to commercial. That's kind of like having doctors without the medical school.

As for your 737 analogy-Into SDL, ASE, and countless other GA airports? If you take this kind of mentality each state would only have two airports with commercial flights only. As it is, many GA airports not only generate surplus money for the FAA but for the Federal government, state government, and local municipalities. Do you have any idea how much cities like TEB and SDL make on their airports alone?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 53): You play in the system, you pay for doing so. Must be nice doing so for free.

Where does it stop though? GA pays a huge tax on fuel that commercial doesn't have. Don't forget landing fees, ramp fees, facility fees, parking fees, and the fuel taxes. Any idea what SFO charges for landing fees on a midsize jet? Its alot.

This is all about a few members of the current administration and the airlines politicizing to the masses "lets tax the mean rich people" line that has been used throughout history. The fact is that GA does already pay more in taxes and fees under the current system.

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 55): Some commercial traffic is still under the GA umbrella (i.e. corporate jets).

The Feds still collect a 7.5% FET on ALL charters. I've seen charters for $500,000. I know that it isn't directly related to ATC funds but, the government still gets it. Not only that but we also pay a passenger segment tax of $3.40 per passenger on each leg. We can also talk about how taxes always grow. Last year it was $3.20. Earlier this year it became $3.30 and last month it went up to $3.40. Kinda like stamps.

GA pays so many taxes to the Feds already.

Quoting Smashme33 (Reply 19): Quoting Graphic (Reply 18): News Flash: Poor young kids aren't able to fly now. Yes, and there is something very wrong with that.

I don't have 20 million USD to spare and have the ruskies blast me into a space vacation, either. Is there something very wrong with that too?

Airlines should start subsidizing space travel to make it more affordable to the masses, because as in flying, it's a right, not a privilege   

*************************************

Secondly, IMHO, and unrelated to this thread, it is morally repugnant for a socialist government to subsidize someone's wish to fly before other basic necessities of the population are met, if not the entire world's population.

Lastly, I am not a socialist.

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 55): Not all Commercial traffic is the airlines. Some commercial traffic is still under the GA umbrella (i.e. corporate jets). I don't see anything in that legislation specifically saying the airlines would pay, and I don't see anything that says they wouldn't. Perhaps it should be worded differently to specifically state Domestic Commercial, General Aviation, and Airline, if that's what they're getting at. However, I don't support this in any way shape or form.

Why do you suppose they refer to International Passenger Fees? Quit making excuses for the sake of arguing. The Airlines pay the same fuel tax. They are a commerical operation and you don't need further distinction.

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 55): That is simply untrue. Carriers like Big Sky, Commutair, Horizon, etc. will still find plenty of uses for aircraft under 50 seats in the foreseeable future long past 7 years from now.

The economic viability of the 50 seat RJ is dead. These carriers will do no such thing.

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 54): By fuel taxes.

Fuel taxes aren't enough to pay for the system.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 58): The current system works well and doesn't need to be scrapped.

The current system does not work and is underfunded.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 61): Woah. This shows a huge discrimation on your part against not only GA but smaller aircraft as well. Anyone who knows aviation realizes that the small planes are just as important as the big ones.

No, it doesn't. It reflects the reality of the top 30 airports.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 61): This is all about a few members of the current administration and the airlines politicizing to the masses "lets tax the mean rich people" line that has been used throughout history. The fact is that GA does already pay more in taxes and fees under the current system.

Nothing of the sort.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 61): Don't forget landing fees, ramp fees, facility fees, parking fees, and the fuel taxes. Any idea what SFO charges for landing fees on a midsize jet? Its alot.

I don't think you understand FBO loopholes. The airport isn't seeing this revenue. Landing fees are structured as signatory and non-signatory. They are the same per 10k for all aircraft in the group, GA and other unshcdueled carriers being non-signatory. The airport entrusts the FBO to collect that landing fee for them. They do, but they also tack on a premium - some as high as 4 times the amount. The airport doesn't see that money, the FBO does. Ramp Fees, Facility Fee's, Parking Fees... All go to the FBO that pays a blanket lease based on the prime rate for the FBO's land footprint. These are all costs that exceed substantially the revenue passed to the Airport. Hence, my statement about getting raped at the ramp.

[Edited 2007-04-20 04:20:31]

Quote: I just don't buy it; I think the supply/demand equilibrium would shift obviously but it wouldn't major. There seemss to be an overabundance of pilots as it is since they are willing to work for a pittance at the low end of the industry and have artificially high wages at the higher end.

Go to countries that don't have a general aviation sector... its not just a supply/demand equilibrium. Where I live, our general aviation sector is puny... and is only for the rich... what do we get? Airlines are forced to "deal" with the pilot shortage... we get rich kids as pilots, the rest comes from the national flying academy, which, thanks to having an almost non-existent general aviation sector, is exorbitantly expensive to maintain... basically, a lack of general aviation will put the supply markets at a disequilibrium... it'll settle at an artificially high price... and then the safety effects?

Quote: Pilot supply will go down and pilot wages will go up.

Which in the end, will be slapped on your ticket price aswell!

Yes in the end, there will be changes to charges on general aviation flying... general aviation will have to put up with it. But cut off general aviation as an aim is an impending disaster. Now there will be differences of opinion on how general aviation will and should be charged... the global trend seems to be GA getting marginalised due to costs and airline current requirements, but totally sidelining GA is something that I hope everyone is avoiding!

Mandala499

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 64): Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 58): The current system works well and doesn't need to be scrapped. The current system does not work and is underfunded.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 64): Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 54): By fuel taxes. Fuel taxes aren't enough to pay for the system.

The FAA proposes to raise fuel taxes nearly 350%. Pray tell, why do we need user fees on top of such an increase? Better question to ask is why do we need to scrap the existing system that has served well for years under congressional oversight in favor of a completely unproven system that will operate without congressional oversight?

As a private pilot, I have been hammered with cost increases in the past couple years. Flying GA aircraft is not near as much fun as it used to be with all the changes/paranoia since 9/11, and rising fuel costs have caused a doubling in wet lease rates for smaller planes.

Adding user fees is a popular ticket for the airlines who wish to reduce their own fees. It's no mistake that the current system is already set up to prioritize commerical air traffic, and for that I am fine. Try talking to a Atlanta controller in a GA aircraft, it's always 'N744UV stand by'. Doing an IFR approach yesterday in a C172, I was vectored 10 miles out of the way because a bank of flights was coming into Tampa International. Do I mind? Hell no, but if I have to pay user fees, I better be right on par with any Southwest flight or American flight.

Let's also remember that GA is largely confined to smaller airports. Around the country these airports face increasing pressure to close due to high land prices and idiot neighbors. In the Tampa area, we've lost 2 GA airports in the past 10 years, and 1 more (X79) is in constant flux because of a new cookie-cutter subdivison built next door. It amazes me the ignorance of people - after a 152 went down in a field nearby, a homeowner was on the evening news saying "I wish they would close that airport - I didn't move out here to be buzzed by airplanes all day and have one crash into MY house". Stupid lady didn't think to notice a GA airport was in her neighborhood.

I live next door to PIE, an international airport. The neighborhood association complained like hell when the Aviation authority wanted to lengthen the main runway. I sat in a meeting and listened to the group leader talk about all the noise from the airport, the prospect of a crash, etc. I then asked him how old his house was....he replied 7 years. I told him that airport was there since 1919 and if he had a problem with it, he probably shouldn't have purchased in our neighborhood.

My point is there is a lot of ignorant statements coming from all parties involved in this dispute, but the fact is that most people consider GA to be the playground of the rich, when in fact it's just a group of 'common folks' who are dedicated for one reason or another to airplanes. Adding user fees to the current system is a silly idea that will completely sink an already drowning industry.

These new funding proposals assume a false predicate: that GA activities "consume" resources which are being paid for by air carriers and their passengers; they do not and, most fundamentally, nearly every element of the airspace systems, ATC, etc., would have to be there and paid for even if GA were simply gone. The modern airspace system was established, in the first place, for the specific purpose of supporting air carriers.

Increase the burden on GA significantly, as has been proposed, and you achieve the following:

1. Snuff out the competitive advantage the US GA industry has and, thus, extinguish the hugely-beneficial GA industry;

2. Substantially harm air safety by discouraging use by GA of the airspace system and air traffic control services;

3. Gut or, in many instances eliminate, the availability of volunteer-based charity flying.

Ticket prices don't drop (hint: they go up, especially for smaller markets where GA and 135 operations are viable options). Thousands of jobs evaporate.

All this is is a power-grab by what is perhaps the most poorly-managed major industry in the union.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 66): The FAA proposes to raise fuel taxes nearly 350%. Pray tell, why do we need user fees on top of such an increase?

System modernization, Self support of GA infrastructure subsidized by the increase in air carrier fuel tax, self support of air traffic management and elimination of general fund contributions to the aviation system from the Federal Budget.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 66): Better question to ask is why do we need to scrap the existing system that has served well for years under congressional oversight in favor of a completely unproven system that will operate without congressional oversight?

Because it doesn't work and the system is underfunded.

Here are key changes:

Provision for Large Hub Airports (top 30 airports) to "congestion price" peak times (a condition not permitted today) to promote an increase in aircraft capacity on a per flight basis at peak times.

Top 30 airports removed from the AIP program (biggest users) and fuel taxes derived from Commercial Operations used to fund the AIP which will also help fund GA and non-top 30 airports, essential air service and FAA R&D. Essentially, Commerical Operations at the top 30 subsidize the remaining airports, including GA airports.

Fuel taxes to provide additional AIP funds to GA Airport and Non-Primary Facilities.

Transfer of airport based navigation systems (Approach Lights, Nav systems) to the airport at the top 30 airports.

Increase in PFC for top 30 airports to pay for infrastructure in lieu of AIP.

Fee based system for those who use air traffic services to fund the FAA's operations and maintenance.

Elimination of existing tax and fee structure.

This isn't an attack on GA, its an effort to shift financial responsibility from the general fund to system users.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 63): subsidize someone's wish to fly

This is news to me. All this time I've been paying for it out of my own pocket.   

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 64): Fuel taxes aren't enough to pay for the system.

That's why passenger tickets and cargo waybills are taxed as well. The AAIP also receives a very small contribution from the general fund. But since many more gallons of AvGas and JetA are consumed in a given period, I would surmise that the fuel taxes make up the largest contributions.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 64): The current system does not work and is underfunded.

Prove it.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 69): System modernization, Self support of GA infrastructure subsidized by the increase in air carrier fuel tax, self support of air traffic management and elimination of general fund contributions to the aviation system from the Federal Budget.

The aviation system is a national resource, why should it not be funded from the general fund? The highway system is funded from the general fund at the state and local levels. Navigable waterway maintenance is funded from the general fund. Show me the studies that showing that making these systems user-supported is the best way to go.

Again, my main point is that government pools revenues and deploys them for the common good. Private corporations do not have the general public's best interest in mind as the sole reason for their existance is to make money for shareholders. Privatizing is not the way to go when it comes to essential services.

I've read a lot of garbage about GA, but this sums it up...

Quoting DTW757 (Reply 13): Many will simply no longer be able to keep up their hobby or dream of becoming a pilot or pursing their career as a pilot.

No way.

First, it is not my responsibility to subsidize your hobby or your dream.

Second, there is no reason that hobby or dream must be fulfilled in a congested airspace like NYC. People may dream of owning a horse, but they aren't allowed to keep them anywhere they want. They may want to drive race cars, but there are only certain places you can do it. GA should be no different, as a hobby. Airports in rural places. Either drive out there to do it, or move closer to your dream.

GA in major populations centers should be reserved for experienced pilots, charters, etc.

As for your career, the market will cover that. If airlines need pilots, they will pay to train people. They will offer scholarships at flight schools for top candidates. They will look to sponsor flight schools completely, and they will go to where they have always gone, the military.

They will not let the pool of pilots dry up. Right now, there is still a glut of pilots. It's why they can pay them so little at regionals. if there really was a shortage, the pay would be higher. It's a red herring argument used by people who don't want to pay full price for their expensive hobby.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 71): The aviation system is a national resource, why should it not be funded from the general fund?

Because air transportation is a private enterprise. It's private, not public transportation. You don't have a right to fly.

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 70): Prove it.

Prove that it is working.

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 70): That's why passenger tickets and cargo waybills are taxed as well.

Such taxes go away.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 71): The highway system is funded from the general fund at the state and local levels.

In the form of fuel taxes... Shocking.

[Edited 2007-04-20 07:46:13]

I'd like someone to figure out how much money could be raised if the FAA added on a 2 cent tax to every airline ticket sold that was for a destination with in US airspace.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 72): Second, there is no reason that hobby or dream must be fulfilled in a congested airspace like NYC.

Which is why I drove an extra 40 miles to do my training at a reliever airport (HPN), rather than LGA, and never went in the New York Class B for training flights - always away from it to less congested areas (that just makes sense from a safety standpoint). But of course, HPN would be open to fees if the FAA got its way.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 75): But of course, HPN would be open to fees if the FAA got its way.

HPN would be subsidized being a reliever airport.

You people really aren't getting this. You're buying all the NBAA hype without actually reading the proposed legislation.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 68): Snuff out the competitive advantage the US GA industry has and, thus, extinguish the hugely-beneficial GA industry;

There's no competitive advantage at a constrained facility.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 68): Substantially harm air safety by discouraging use by GA of the airspace system and air traffic control services;

This assertion doesn't even pass the reasonableness test.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 68): Gut or, in many instances eliminate, the availability of volunteer-based charity flying.

Never happen.

[Edited 2007-04-20 07:44:57]

I will give my .02.

One aspect that is not being talked about is flight training. Thats right, the future regional and major pilot supply.

The number of new CFI (Commercial Flight Instructor) certificates issued year-over-year had DROPPED 43% since 2003. I work and train at a large SAT flight school. We have 30 Chinese students, about 20-30 Mexican students, 3-4 students from other countries, 10-15 Air Force navigators receiving flying introductions, some rich doctors, and 4(!!!) (that I know of) students on the airline pilot track. Of those, I am the only one flying more than once a week.

Another flight school here closed due to lack of flight instructors and it is the same all over the country.

There is a SERIOUS pilot shortage looming, and regional airlines are dropping their minimum requirements like a prom date's dress trying to keep classes staffed. Pinnacle, TSA, and a few others are only requiring a Commercial certificate/multi add-on for first officers. That is only 250-300 hours of flight time!

Why is this happening? Well the answer is three-fold.

1. The cost of flight training has become extremely expensive. You can expect to spend 40,000 dollars MINIMUM to earn all of your rating through MEI. This is due in large part to Avgas prices. Don't forget you will need a four-year degree to get past the regionals if you want to fly professionally.

2. Pilot wages are too low. Pilots on the line, (especially at the regional level) are leaving in DROVES. Granted, many are leaving for WN, CO, DL, Airtran, B6, Fedex, and UPS, but many are also leaving all together due to the pay cuts and work rule changes. I could give you the shocking numbers, but it would make my fingers too tired. Flights are now being cancelled because there are no pilots to fly them, and many regionals are now offering $5,000 bonuses for new-hires or giving current pilots $500 per recommended new-hire that completes training! Even the vaunted WN has lowered its PIC minumums for new-hires. Every month the situation is becoming worse at the flight instruction and regional level, and will hit the majors within the next 5-7 years.

3. UAVs. The advent of the UAV is slowing down pilot procurement in the military. Many military pilots are also staying in the service due to the lack of a retirement in the commercial market and the airline lifestyle.

The US airlines can always outsource to foreign pilots right? WRONG. The Chinese are sending their trainees over here in droves, and India will need a projected 11,000 new pilots in the next 3 years. Last year they trained 150.

The flow of new pilots in the US is on life support, and a user-fee system would only push the hospital bed through the 10th floor window. Just as some say the pilots at the majors "choked the golden goose" in the late 90s, management has done the same in SPADES post 9-11 and now they are paying for it.

Flying at the commercial level takes a large amount of skill, and a mind-boggling amount of studying and knowledge. I have seen many students told by their instructors that they will never be pilots because they cannot fly themselves out of a paper bag. It all looks easy on Flight Simulator X, but when you are on a 5-9 hour check-ride, and thermals are kicking your butt all over the sky, you learn a new respect for the profession.

If you want to see where to get the money to pay pilots and make it an attractive career again, just look at management's salaries and bonuses.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 64): No, it doesn't. It reflects the reality of the top 30 airports.

But your are ignorant of my point that the top 30 airports constitute a partial responsibility for the FAA. Care to talk about the fees paid by the others? Of course not, commercial aviation has you in blinders.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 64): don't think you understand FBO loopholes. The airport isn't seeing this revenue. Landing fees are structured as signatory and non-signatory. They are the same per 10k for all aircraft in the group, GA and other unshcdueled carriers being non-signatory. The airport entrusts the FBO to collect that landing fee for them. They do, but they also tack on a premium - some as high as 4 times the amount. The airport doesn't see that money, the FBO does. Ramp Fees, Facility Fee's, Parking Fees... All go to the FBO that pays a blanket lease based on the prime rate for the FBO's land footprint. These are all costs that exceed substantially the revenue passed to the Airport. Hence, my statement about getting raped at the ramp

I have spent half my life working for FBO's so I think that you underestimate me.

The airport is seeing revenue. Fuel prices directly affect whether planes come into most airports. I can cite you PNC or SLN if you wish. Are you actually thinking that most go there as a final destination?

Secondly, the indirect costs of ramp fees, etc directly effect the FBO's ability to do business which directly effects the amount of money taken in for the airport and the amount of tax money taken. Do you seriously think that if SLN had SFO's landing and Signature fees that people would go there? I do this 12 hours a day and I can tell you with 110% certainty that any airport suffers or dies by what the FBO's charge. You are very ignorant to think that an airport will do well without reasonable fuel pricing or charges. That is unless it is SFO, MIA, or TEB.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 64): Landing fees are structured as signatory and non-signatory. They are the same per 10k for all aircraft in the group, GA and other unshcdueled carriers being non-signatory. The airport entrusts the FBO to collect that landing fee for them.

It is correct that some airports charge per weight. But you seem to be missing the point that many charge more for 135 rather than 91. The FACT is that the feds do see a portion of the charges no matter your BS semantics.

Also, as someone who does this day in and day out, the FBO doesn't always collect the funds for landing fees. About 50% of the airports do it that way and the rest has the airport authorities directly charging the operator. Something tells me that you are not actually involved in these types of things.

[Edited 2007-04-20 09:47:52]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 73): Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 71): The aviation system is a national resource, why should it not be funded from the general fund? Because air transportation is a private enterprise. It's private, not public transportation. You don't have a right to fly.

Well, automobiles and bus companies are privately owned as well. By your logic then nobody has a right to drive either.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 73): Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 70): Prove it. Prove that it is working.

Okay, I am still waiting for your proof that the system is flawed and needs to be radically changed.

Just provide a few links to articles so that I and others can understand your point of view.

Thanks in advance.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 44): Depends on if you consider a 737 vs. a prop that takes up the same approach airspace at a major airport resulting in a 148 passenger capacity depletion.

Most props avoid the airports 737's use. Some props were pushed into bigger airports, like when Miegs closed, but, for the most part, props use the smaller, reliever airports. Plus landing at larger airports is quite expensive as is for smaller planes. The landing fees have already done some to segregate the smaller planes away from the larger airports.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 1): Then expect a lot of delays when we bring our airplanes into the busier airports. GA has every right to be out there.

Yes we have every right to be out there, but we have every right to pay for it ourselves and not charge the commercial passenger an arm and a leg.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 78): But your are ignorant of my point that the top 30 airports constitute a partial responsibility for the FAA. Care to talk about the fees paid by the others? Of course not, commercial aviation has you in blinders.

They also bear the brunt of the cost.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 78): I have spent half my life working for FBO's so I think that you underestimate me.

I've spent my life running airports and working in airport development consulting. Don't even start.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 80): Well, automobiles and bus companies are privately owned as well. By your logic then nobody has a right to drive either.

And when you buy fuel, you pay taxes that pay for the roadways. When you buy a car, you pay a registration fee. When you get a Driver License, you pay a fee. Driving isn't a right either.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 80): Okay, I am still waiting for your proof that the system is flawed and needs to be radically changed.

First of all, try to wrap your head around the fact that the core issue is airport infrastructure funding, not FAA funding. Second, the new fees are for FAA services which you should be paying for anyway.

http://www.nata.aero/filedownload?da...ETA&keyName=DOCUMENT_ID&rowId=2901

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=8250

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99096t.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...04&db_id=104&item=&sel=TOC_166400&

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=8144

Smashme33

$5-6 per gallon.

You had better not come here then.  

It costs about £5 a gallon, ($10).

David

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 83): And when you buy fuel, you pay taxes that pay for the roadways. When you buy a car, you pay a registration fee. When you get a Driver License, you pay a fee. Driving isn't a right either.

You make it seem that pilots and owners aren't paying anything when the truth of the matter is that they do. When someone buys aviation fuel they pay taxes that goes into the aviation trust fund. When someone buys a plane they pay taxes on the purchase price, and when someone registers that plane they pay a registration fee.

The proposed funding changes could seriously cripple an industry that contributes signficantly to the overall economy. I'd rather err on the side of caution and make gradual changes to the system rather than a wholesale one that appears to significantly benefit a few players at the expense of many others.

Thanks for posting those links. I've seen most of them, but I'll read them again to seek understanding of your position.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 85): You make it seem that pilots and owners aren't paying anything when the truth of the matter is that they do. When someone buys aviation fuel they pay taxes that goes into the aviation trust fund.

And airlines will now join the fuel tax fray at the same rate increasing revenue contibuting even greater amounts to fund the system. These are funds that will be diverted to smaller airports to fund infrastructure to be used predominantly by GA, in essence subsidizing GA for relief of congestion at the major airports. PFC's will replace airline ticket taxes which will be coupled with landing fees to fund infrastructure at the specific airport with passenger service - a direct cost to the passenger, security fees will fund the TSA, Air Service fees from carriers will fund the vast majority of the FAA's cost requirements - all derived from commerical passenger operations. GA will pay a fuel tax, and a fee for FAA services - just like the airlines. If you don't use the service, you don't pay. Its not as if this is a special fee structure "just for GA", or a special fuel tax "just for GA". Everyone that uses the system pays. The whole thing started with airport funding, not some vast conspiracy to target GA.

My problem with all is this, is trying to fix a system that simply isn't broke. In fact it works rather well. Even folks in the FAA and government seem to agree it works - just those that are being bullied by the airlines seem to think otherwise.

You want to see what happens when fees are charged - look to Europe - then you'll see how very different aviation is from a cost perspective, and why thousands flock to the USA every year to complete their flight training.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 64): The airport entrusts the FBO to collect that landing fee for them.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 83): I've spent my life running airports and working in airport development consulting. Don't even start.

Then you should know a huge amount of landing fees are actually collected by private fee-collection businesses, which charge a fairly large percentage of the fees collected. Trust me, it's quite a profitable business. They're going to laughing all the way to the bank with these 'airport funds'.

Quoting BigAppleCoder (Reply 66): Better question to ask is why do we need to scrap the existing system that has served well for years under congressional oversight in favor of a completely unproven system that will operate without congressional oversight?

Yes, I have yet to hear a good answer.

Jimbo

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 76): You people really aren't getting this. You're buying all the NBAA hype without actually reading the proposed legislation.

"You people"? If you are going to continue to look down upon others like that, well, I guess I'm done here. I was a supporter of privatized ATC until I learned the damage user fees will do. So please take your "buying all the NBAA hype" somewhere else.

Quoting Chris133 (Reply 82): Yes we have every right to be out there, but we have every right to pay for it ourselves and not charge the commercial passenger an arm and a leg.

What exactly is an "arm and a leg?" How much of, for example, a $200 round trip ticket is made up of taxes? Oh, and please provide the group with the source of your information.

And when GA dries up, who is going to make up for the shortfall in revenue then?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 86): If you don't use the service, you don't pay.

Like I've said before, I pay for the service just by burning fuel, even if I don't fly.

[Edited 2007-04-20 20:07:22]

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 70): This is news to me. All this time I've been paying for it out of my own pocket. crazy

As I posted, that paragraph is not directly related to this thread. You quoted me out of context.

You may be paying it out of your own pocket, but as the thread opener's article stated, the everyday passengers who have to spend hours on commercial terminals, go through all the hassles, and fly at often inconvenient times and indirect routes also pick up the tab of your own personal flying out of the local GA airport.

Fair?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 89): the everyday passengers who have to spend hours on commercial terminals, go through all the hassles, and fly at often inconvenient times and indirect routes also pick up the tab of your own personal flying out of the local GA airport.

I guess they owe me some money then.  

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 89): Fair?

Guess not. I mean, after all, I was just mooching services that rightfully belonged to them.  

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 89): but as the thread opener's article stated, the everyday passengers who have to spend hours on commercial terminals, go through all the hassles, and fly at often inconvenient times and indirect routes also pick up the tab of your own personal flying out of the local GA airport.

Explain how they do this?

Because some of that 7.5% tax (lower than probably pay on most other services), might be used for GA use?

Perhaps you shouls ask how much tax the GA pilot paid, when he filled up his Cessna.

I'd better contact my local DOT and complain about those rural roads they're repairing for all those suburbanites, that I NEVER use, but pay for in my gas taxes. God, repair MY road only - that's how it should work, right???

Jimbo

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 87): God, repair MY road only - that's how it should work, right???

Why not? I walk to work, the gym, and supermarket, and can go for a week without driving my car. Why not charge the people that use the facilities, ie roads/freeways/airports/etc?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 88): Why not? I walk to work, the gym, and supermarket, and can go for a week without driving my car. Why not charge the people that use the facilities, ie roads/freeways/airports/etc?

For the same reason I don't agree with user fees ... the expense of collecting it. If want to go through a toll at every road junction, then go ahead. If you want to pay a private company to post a fee collector on every corner - go ahead. Don't forget you'll be paying for these toll collectors.

...oh, of course, since road wear is dependent upon vehicle weight - we'll have a complicated system that charges different rates for different vehicles for different roads... it work out great.

...or just pay a tax on your gas - which is directly proportional to the miles of road you drive on. You choice.

..."and can go for a week without driving my car." - then you're NOT paying gas taxes are you??

Jimbo

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 52): Not without subsidies.

Again, NOT TRUE! While some of their routes are subsidized, others are not! Big Sky flies several routes with the Beech 1900 that are not subsidized and are quite profitable

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 60): The economic viability of the 50 seat RJ is dead. These carriers will do no such thing.

Those carriers do not operate the 50-seat RJ in the first place. They operate smaller turbo-props, and yes, they absolutely will be operating them well past 7 years from now and will be making a profit doing so.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 60): Why do you suppose they refer to International Passenger Fees? Quit making excuses for the sake of arguing. The Airlines pay the same fuel tax. They are a commerical operation and you don't need further distinction.

Do not need a further distinction? That's a matter of opinion, and the only one making excuses for the sake of arguing is you. I used to have immense respect for you on here, but that's gone. The fact is, unless it specifically names the airlines, they could attempt to fina a way around it.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 89): For the same reason I don't agree with user fees ... the expense of collecting it. If want to go through a toll at every road junction, then go ahead. If you want to pay a private company to post a fee collector on every corner - go ahead. Don't forget you'll be paying for these toll collectors.

The Mass Turnpike is a great example. It was supposed to be a toll road only as long as it would take to pay off their construction bonds. When they were paid off, the authority quickly got new bonds to pay off instead of tearing down the booths. All those jobs to protect. Aviation user fees would be no different. Massive bureaucracy replacing a straightforward consumption based tax. The ATC system has to be there to support the airlines and the business jets. It's in the governments interest to keep the system accessible (read no cost) because the more pilots and planes working with ATC the safer the whole system is.

What happens to corporate and commercial aviation when all the private planes transponders are 1200 and not talking to the controllers? A fee based system will be less efficient, less safe and have widespread negative business impact.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 87): Explain how they do this?

Quote: "I'm looking for someone to explain why the average citizen, who is far less wealthy than the folks who fly the corporate jets, has to pay a user fee when the folks who fly out of Teterboro don't," said Rep. Steven Rothman, (D., Fair Lawn), whose district includes Teterboro.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 87): Perhaps you shouls ask how much tax the GA pilot paid, when he filled up his Cessna.

Not enough to cover his expensive indulgences, apparently.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 89): the expense of collecting it.

Yeah, that's such a huge issue no can possibly figure it out!

Surely the government knows how to efficiently collect them, right? Private enterprise is so awfully inefficient. . .   

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 89): ...oh, of course, since road wear is dependent upon vehicle weight - we'll have a complicated system that charges different rates for different vehicles for different roads... it work out great. ...or just pay a tax on your gas - which is directly proportional to the miles of road you drive on. You choice. ..."and can go for a week without driving my car." - then you're NOT paying gas taxes are you??

It'll only be as complicated as the competition lets you be. . .

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90): expensive indulgences

That's the crux of all this isn't it? General Aviation is seen as an expensive toy for the elite paid for by poor, innocent airline travelers.   

• General aviation supports 1.3 million jobs and more than $102 billion of total economic activity in the United States annually. As a result, the jobs supporting GA are found all across America.
  
• America is blessed with more than 20,000 airports and heliports. The airlines only serve 540 of these airports, or less than 3 percent. Imagine how inadequate your car or truck would be if you could only drive on 3 percent of America's roads or highways.
  
• Each year, 166 million passengers, including many from your community, fly on the small airplanes of general aviation. That makes the 211,000 airplanes of GA the nation's largest "airline." That's more passengers than American Airlines, United Air Lines, and Northwest Airlines combined.
  
• By using small aircraft and small local airports, tens of thousands of cancer patients, burn victims, and sick or injured children have been able to fly for free to world-class medical centers in major cities, even when these patients live hundreds of miles away in rural communities.
  
• Your local weather forecast comes straight from the forecasting system that was created to serve America's pilots. Every time you look at a weather map on TV, the temperatures, cloud cover, precipitation, and winds are being reported to you from weather stations located at thousands of airports across America. So, when you see the temperature on a weather map, think about the local airport that's at that location.
  

http://www.gaservingamerica.com/

Quoting Chris133 (Reply 76): Yes we have every right to be out there, but we have every right to pay for it ourselves and not charge the commercial passenger an arm and a leg.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 77): And when you buy fuel, you pay taxes that pay for the roadways. When you buy a car, you pay a registration fee. When you get a Driver License, you pay a fee. Driving isn't a right either.

Good points all, but honestly, if we're going to move the United States to a system where everyone pays for what they use, no more and no less, then we shouldn't start with aviation. It's "small pickings" of what's out there.

There are a million things where revenues are distributed unequally. Or where large businesses (compared to smaller ones) do business in ways to impact the amount of tax they pay (think Delware corporations, for example).

Steve

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 91):

I want all of my phone (including cell phones) services paid for. Include high-speed internet service as well. Imagine the good it would do to all of us?

Surely much more beneficial than subsidizing GA.

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 91): That's the crux of all this isn't it? General Aviation is seen as an expensive toy for the elite paid for by poor, innocent airline travelers. sarcastic

The crux is pay for the services you require! Don't pass that bill to anyone else! You used it, you pay for it. I pay for my cell phone, I pay for my text messaging, I pay for what I want.

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 91): # General aviation supports 1.3 million jobs and more than $102 billion of total economic activity in the United States annually. As a result, the jobs supporting GA are found all across America. # America is blessed with more than 20,000 airports and heliports. The airlines only serve 540 of these airports, or less than 3 percent. Imagine how inadequate your car or truck would be if you could only drive on 3 percent of America's roads or highways. # Each year, 166 million passengers, including many from your community, fly on the small airplanes of general aviation. That makes the 211,000 airplanes of GA the nation's largest "airline." That's more passengers than American Airlines, United Air Lines, and Northwest Airlines combined. # By using small aircraft and small local airports, tens of thousands of cancer patients, burn victims, and sick or injured children have been able to fly for free to world-class medical centers in major cities, even when these patients live hundreds of miles away in rural communities. # Your local weather forecast comes straight from the forecasting system that was created to serve America's pilots. Every time you look at a weather map on TV, the temperatures, cloud cover, precipitation, and winds are being reported to you from weather stations located at thousands of airports across America. So, when you see the temperature on a weather map, think about the local airport that's at that location.

None of this matters at all.

If there's less money going into GA, it will be going elsewhere, and jobs will follow. Gives Cessna and Piper a true market to work with instead of some bloated, fake market. And nice try with the poor sick people. . . if they fly for free now, they are likely to continue flying for free.

[Edited 2007-04-20 22:40:37]

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 93): The crux is pay for the services you require! Don't pass that bill to anyone else! You used it, you pay for it. I pay for my cell phone, I pay for my text messaging, I pay for what I want.

But where is GA not paying their fare share now????

Jimbo

I have little idea how things do or should work in the US. In Canada, there is a very large network of small airports scattered across the country. Originally, they were for commercial purposes back in days when aircraft were one of the prime ways of opening up the barren country. The aircraft of the time were not exactly renowned for their range and/or reliability.

Most of these small airports still serve commercial purposes. Some are used for passenger flights or cargo but ALL are kept open for air ambulance purposes. Get into a car accident a few hundred miles away from a hospital and then argue how the airport should be completely funded by general aviation.

Look at the money lost due to inefficiency and mismanagement by the airlines. Compare that to the cost of general aviation to the public. It's a crass argument foisted on the public by the airlines and their backers to divert attention away from their borderline criminal misuse of funds. It gives the airlines another excuse to raise their prices while blaming someone else.

Perhaps the system should be improved. Great... do it. Do some proper studies, get ALL of the parties involved, crunch all the numbers, do a proper cost/benefit analysis. Knee jerk reactions based on the obvious bias of parties with a vested interest, (eg, airlines, politicians looking to get re-elected), probably won't result in anything productive.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 93): You used it, you pay for it.

I do!! Fuel taxes, which I pay, contribute the majority of funds to the AIP.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 93): The crux is pay for the services you require!

Fuel tax. I still pay that fuel tax when I don't use ATC services.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 93): None of this matters at all.

Of course not. Airlines are more important.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 93): if they fly for free now, they are likely to continue flying for free.

On what? The airlines? They'll want a subsidy for that.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 93): I want all of my phone (including cell phones) services paid for. Include high-speed internet service as well. Imagine the good it would do to all of us?

I don't recieve the benefit of ATC services without paying for them. I pay taxes to fund those operations. I get nothing for free.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 94): But where is GA not paying their fare share now????

You must have missed my first reply to your comment. I'll admit its easy to miss it. From the article in the thread opener's post:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90): Quote: "I'm looking for someone to explain why the average citizen, who is far less wealthy than the folks who fly the corporate jets, has to pay a user fee when the folks who fly out of Teterboro don't," said Rep. Steven Rothman, (D., Fair Lawn), whose district includes Teterboro.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 70): HPN would be subsidized being a reliever airport. You people really aren't getting this. You're buying all the NBAA hype without actually reading the proposed legislation.

Actually, I did read the proposed legislation to find that out. HPN, while being a reliever airport, is also defined as a "primary airport" and thus would be fair game for user fees if the .70 hike on fuel taxes isn't approved. Two other reliever airports with the potential for fees - LGB and SFB.

Quoting Chris133 (Reply 76): Yes we have every right to be out there, but we have every right to pay for it ourselves and not charge the commercial passenger an arm and a leg.

Last time I checked, ticket prices are nowhere near what they used to be. I'm not quite sure how the commercial passenger is being charged an arm and a leg.

-Mir

It can't really be shocking to anyone that they pay taxes for stuff they don't use, can it...? If you don't have kids, do you still pay school taxes? If you don't fly, do you still pay for ATC? If you don't have anything robbed, do you still pay for cops? If you don't cross a border, do you still pay for Immigration? If you don't have a boat, do you still pay for the Coast Guard?

If you're not flying, you're not paying airport improvement fees. Already, that exempts most people. For the people that are paying, they're keeping the smaller craft away from the big cities. Imagine the congestion if the only airports were the majors. If you had props of all manner coming in and out of EWR, imagine the bitching then. How much would you pay to keep granny off the freeway, for example?

Besides, what they forget to mention are all the other fees that the airport is raking in from the flying public. Does anyone really believe that the fees mentioned are the only ones being collected. Sure, Liberty only got 40 mil from that fee. How much did they collect in total, from all the fees they charge? I didn't see that figure. Does the flying public have a right to know those numbers?