Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 48): The airliners.net user base simply does not care and they would love to see GA completely gone.

Without GA there is no commercial aviation. It would take some time, but it would have to go away. If you hate GA, why do you like aviation? What's so different for you?

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 30): With that logic, the government might as well start charging a $100 fee every time you take your car. You are, after all, using subsidized roadways...

Well, if the governor of my state, Rick "I never met a lobbyist I did'nt like" Perry gets his way, I'll be paying that in daily tolls soon!. They are currently working on an 8 mile stretch of freeway near my house that is expected to have $9.00 tolls during peak periods.

Quoting Northwest727 (Reply 35):

I will see if i can find the document i read from late last year, but im almost positive that it said no ATP.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 52): I will see if i can find the document i read from late last year, but im almost positive that it said no ATP.

There was some sort of document/article I saw a while ago that said if you graduated from an approved training program and/or Part 141 school the minimums would be lowered to something like 750 hours, or if one has time at a Part 121 airline and gets furloughed and can't find a job until after this law goes into effect but still doesn't have 1,500 hours, that person would be grandfathered in with lower minimums. I'll see if I can find the exact source because I'm not 100% sure if I have all the facts straight.

What would you expect from Obama. Gotta tax the rich man....

Quoting txjim (Reply 51): Well, if the governor of my state, Rick "I never met a lobbyist I did'nt like" Perry gets his way, I'll be paying that in daily tolls soon!. They are currently working on an 8 mile stretch of freeway near my house that is expected to have $9.00 tolls during peak periods.

That is indeed pretty steep. But, unless I'm completely wrong, you have the option of using side roads which cost you nothing more than the tax money you already pay and a little extra gas. Now imagine you had to pay that fee every time you pulled out of your driveway...  

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 54): What would you expect from Obama. Gotta tax the rich man....

As stated above, this idea first appeared in the Bush years. Obama is just recycling it.  

  

Quoting nyc2theworld (Reply 31): Wait...let me get this straight. People complain on here that passengers don't pay enough in airfare and if they can't stand the price they should take the bus, drive, or mass transit. However, if someone want to fly in their private aircraft for some pizza for chicago they shouldn't have to bear some of the increased cost of aviation in this country?!!? What a double standard.

Apples to oranges. If airline passengers don't pay enough for their fares, it's because of fuel prices, or the cost of the service that the passengers want. GA pays for both of those directly. So there's no double standard at all.

Quoting baldheadeddork (Reply 44): In 2010, the FAA collected $10.6 billion from commercial passenger and cargo taxes and fuel taxes. Of that, only $35 million came from non-commercial avgas taxes.

And how much does GA use the ATC system as opposed to the airlines?

Quoting baldheadeddork (Reply 44): And just because you don't use fields that have a tower or ever fly IFR doesn't mean you don't use FAA resources. Who do you think pays for runway repairs, lighting, buffer land acquisition, and basically everything else save the hangars? Local taxpayers? Whatever you pay for hangar or T-shade rent?

Local taxpayers do cover some of the costs in certain areas. There are also landing fees assessed by local governments.

And keep in mind that the airlines have a nice incentive to support GA airfields - that keeps GA out of the airports that the airlines normally inhabit, and thus reduces congestion.

-Mir

Seriously I cannot even understand how a group of people who should have a fair deal of education can let such a pathetic organization represent them and write the kind of crap I read above. Now what really funny is how many of the people on here can't even see through the propaganda they put out.

Quoting txkf2010 (Thread starter): I'm not trying to solicit anyone into joining AOPA, I am however opposed to this tyrannical behavior that is being throw at us but the upper reaches of this rotten, oppressive government.

This government is the one that the people voted by a dramatic margin for. If you really believe the garbage you wrote above then it is you who is out of touch not the government.

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 1): A user fee OF ANY SCALE will set back the supply of pilots in the future, hurting everyone from the casual sport flyer, to the smaller businesses that use general aviation, and all the way up to the airlines and ultimately the consumer as well!

This fee is being pushed by the airlines because they are sick of paying the bills for business jet operators who are more than ever their competitors. The supply of pilots is way to big and that is causing major problems for all pilots. The casual sport flyer is not even covered by this new proposed rule. Look at that, every one of your objections shot down with factual information, amazing!

Quoting txkf2010 (Reply 7): Couldn't have said it better myself! Flight schools are already having a hard enough time to get students in the door. No new students=no new instructors=no new F/Os with the regionals etc etc etc

You really need to check your information, there is a HUGE amount of supply on the pilot side. The reason pilots are making less than every is because of the large supply of pilots that surpasses the demand by far right now.

Quoting Av8tor (Reply 8): So it appears they are targeting corporate aircraft. Not small GA aircraft.

BINGO!!! Why shouldn't they have to pay for a system they use? The airlines have been picking up their share of the bill since the beginning and now they are done.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):   A GA system is one of many pieces of infrastructure that we should not be afraid to subsidize. The idea that we shouldn't subsidize infrastructure is a new one and is tremendously destructive to innovation and economic well-being. Rather than impose ruinous user fees, we shouldn't be afraid to fund things like this out of the general treasury, and to tax at a level (which would still be well below historical norms) needed to pay for them.

Do you understand that the money has to come from somewhere and right now there is no extra money? The people who use the system need to pay for it, why should the 98% of people who will never use the ATC system pay for the 2% who will? Right now its set up so that the airlines pay it all while they compete with business jets who use the same system without the same fees, that's not a fair way of doing business.

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 10): If you can pay $ 2000 and usually much much more for a private flight that probably will use FAA services, you can add $100. Fly commercial otherwise. It seems AOPA's propaganda is deceiving.

Very deceiving! I would however like to point out that a $2000.00 private flight would be on the super super cheap end. The real costs for the flights are much more and adding a fee to pay for the ATC service they use is not unreasonable. If they don't want to pay for it well then they are going to have to find a different way to get around. If I don't pay my taxes for my car I cannot use the roads, same idea in a way.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 11): This appears to be a classic example of a static analysis. Increased fees would result in less flying, so the espoused $11 billion won't be realized. Instead, jobs will be lost. And IMHO, we don't need more unemployment in the U.S. of A.

So you think because of that we should make the airlines continue to pay their bill? Or are you also suggesting this magic money fountain that another user above thought we should use.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 12): So tell me, how does that remotely constitute a $100 fee every time i go flying locally for 1-1.5 hours? None of this is for "fun" either but is my schooling... As mir said, we are already taxed higher on fuel than everyone else. Its not our faults if they waste the money like every other government agency seems to do. And also this is not the FAA doing this, this is the President doing this to help pay for his government's inability to balance a budget like every smart citizen and business does.

The kind of flight that would be covered by this kind of fee isn't yours. I just decided to check and see the price of an hour and a half flight since you mentioned it and it would be around $10,670.00 without fees. Would it really be so bad to add a $100.00 fee to this for the ATC service these operators already use? I really don't think so.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 15): Also according to AOPA, User fees bypass congressional budgeting processes and can be raised or expanded at will. So if the current administration feels they are too low, or that recreational pistons should pay, then they can do that without any opposition.

AOPA is full of crap. If you believe their crap you would believe that the president would just get to make and change fees at will! CRAP!

Quoting bahadir (Reply 16): I own a flight school and with the increasing cost of fuel, insurance, rent, etc. I am already crazy to own this business. This will kill the entire flight training business which happens to be a big exporter for this country..

Depending on the kind of training you are doing it doesn't sound like you would be effected at all, however I think you should be paying SOMETHING for the service ATC is providing you. Luckily for you this doesn't include anything for your light props.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 18): Many corporations will, of course, get around the fee, and the revenue numbers will never materialize. The money that does come in will just disappear anyway, no tangible benefits will be seen, and in a few years they will add another tax or fee, etc.

There are tangible benefits right now. The fact that ATC keeps all of these small planes in the air is a pretty big benefit. No where else in the world does any service do better.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 19): You've spoken to every corporate jet operator in the country to verify this? I personally know of one who will be flying less if this is implemented, thus reducing pilot income. Also, a could see a few fractional owners selling their shares and headed back to the airlines. Netjets alone has 495 pilots furloughed right now. This is not going to help us get back to work.

If the jet operator cannot deal with paying the fees for the service they use than they might as well go out of business, oh well. I only have a close enough relationship to know the financial information of two small operators and they would not be hurt in the least, they would just add it to the fees section of the invoice and I doubt anyone would notice. I guess if thing are really bad for the company they could take out a few bottle of water in catering fees and there is $100.00. This operator just happens to charge $32.00 per bottle of Evian.

Quoting stevenlee505 (Reply 23): This is probably going to cause more accidents in general aviation with pilots trying their best to avoid talking to ATC/FSS/RCOs/etc. to avoid that $100 fee.

Not at all, they will have to pay period. There is no trying to avoid it, what reputable company would do such a thing? I sure wouldn't do that.

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 25): Even if this doesn't cover piston planes now, it will some day. Maybe there might end up being a pilot shortage after all...

So we should be upset about what might happen some day? Really?

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 55): Quoting vegas005 (Reply 54): What would you expect from Obama. Gotta tax the rich man.... As stated above, this idea first appeared in the Bush years. Obama is just recycling it.

Actually this is not correct...from the FAA press release in 2007: Note the last line...so once again stop blaming Bush....he is long gone and the current administration has got to take responsibility for their actions!!!!!

Myth: The FAA’s cost allocation assumes that “a blip is a blip” and doesn’t account for airlines driving the costs through peak usage, while GA is only a marginal user.
Facts:
The cost allocation recognizes that a piston “blip” does not drive the same costs as a jet “blip.” It also recognizes that a flight into an airport like Cheyenne, Wyoming drives very different costs from a flight into Chicago O’Hare.
However, the cost allocation does assume that a corporate jet flying the exact same flight as an airline jet uses the same services and drives the same costs.
The allocation divides air traffic services into six different categories with different cost structures (including three different categories of terminals). This methodology recognizes that busy facilities are more expensive and only assigns costs for those facilities to those who use them. For instance, the thirty large hubs, where commercial turbine activity accounts for over 92 percent of the operations, have an average cost per operation nearly 50 percent higher than our middle group of terminals and over five times as high as our low activity towers.
The allocation also assigned 100 percent of the costs of an approach control facility to the largest terminal category it serves. For instance, all of the costs associated with the New York TRACON went into the large hub group, in recognition that Newark, LaGuardia and Kennedy drive most of the TRACON costs. GA flights to Teterboro may use TRACON services, but are not allocated any of the costs.
Each cost item is allocated between the two principal users: 1) High performance / turbine and 2) Piston/Helicopter. In virtually all cases (except for the smallest towers), piston users are considered marginal and therefore are not assigned the fixed costs of the system

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 57): So we should be upset about what might happen some day? Really?

Calm down, it was a joke.

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 54): What would you expect from Obama. Gotta tax the rich man....

As opposed to the GOP? Gotta tax the poor man?

This is simple. Pay the cost for the service. Right now, the cost GA pays for the services are no where near the cost of providing those services.

This is why we have the deficit. Everyone wants to cut taxes and fees and make everyone pay for what they use--unless it is them who have to pay.

Quoting Mir (Reply 56): Local taxpayers do cover some of the costs in certain areas. There are also landing fees assessed by local governments. And keep in mind that the airlines have a nice incentive to support GA airfields - that keeps GA out of the airports that the airlines normally inhabit, and thus reduces congestion. -Mir

I call shenanigans. Every muni airport I've ever been involved with would be carved up for subdivisions by the close of business tomorrow if local taxpayers had to cover even 5% of the operational and maintenance costs. If you don't believe me, ask your airport manager. You have to cover all of your operating expenses with airport revenues (including all costs for your municipal employees, so you actually have to hand money back just to break even) and if you want any major improvements you better know how to write a FAA grant application.

And GA isn't doing the airlines any favors by staying out of their airports. The airlines don't care. If GA creates a congestion issue for the companies that pay the landing and gate fees, the airport will make it clear that they want us to leave. The airspace will be reclassified to discourage VFR use, the GA FBO's will be encouraged to drop non-corporate services like flight schools and recip repairs, or both. Look at what's happened at airports like PHX and MIA in the last twenty years, or try to base your Cherokee at ORD or LGA today.

Quoting FAT5DEP (Reply 43): $100 to use the internet.

Careful, they've already headed down that path, don't give them any more encouragement....   

Quoting mmedford (Reply 49): This stuff costs money and someone has to absorb it. Plus we need money to invest into future equipment & still maintain the current stuff.

The jist of the debate here (or at least originally) is that it's unfair to levy a $100 blanket tax on all users - a time-based (aka fuel tax) would be a much more sensible option. We all know aviation equipment is very precise and needs a lot of expertise for design, construction and upkeep - no one is arguing that. The method of assessing the tax is what's being contested.

I think you can call BS on 99% of this thread right here:

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=8747


and here:

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07625t.html

Sometimes you need to read the government documents on the subjects before reading a PAC's version of the same. I am an AOPA member, and a GA pilot, but that doesn't mean I drink Fuller's kool-aid. After all, he was a Washington lobbyist....

"The Devil's Advocate"

Kevin Lomax: In the Bible you lose. We're destined to lose dad.

John Milton (satan): Well consider the source son.


Could not have said it better myself.

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 63): I think you can call BS on 99% of this thread right here: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=8747

according to that link it was posted in 2007. I consider that to be dated. $100 is totally absurd. So now my hour flight with my instructor will cost $300? no-one can afford flight training at that rate!!!

Quoting captainstefan (Reply 62): The jist of the debate here (or at least originally) is that it's unfair to levy a $100 blanket tax on all users - a time-based (aka fuel tax) would be a much more sensible option. We all know aviation equipment is very precise and needs a lot of expertise for design, construction and upkeep - no one is arguing that. The method of assessing the tax is what's being contested.

But what you are not understanding here is that they have tried to do this several different ways and AOPA is not for ANY fee. The services cost money and GA needs to pay their portion of that amount.

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 64): according to that link it was posted in 2007. I consider that to be dated. $100 is totally absurd. So now my hour flight with my instructor will cost $300? no-one can afford flight training at that rate!!!

If you are paying $200 an hour now then you wont have that fee. The type of aircraft you are flying would not be subject to the fee.

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 63): http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=8747

I'm glad you posted this, I would like to know though if there is something more recent than 2007. I know the 2011 budget had no plan for user fees so why would the proposal from 2007 be the same proposal in 2013? I wan't to know where the AOPA gets their $100 a flight number from. Where is the official white house proposal? I also want to know what are these 30 large hub airports? Knowing the 30 isn't really important to this issue but I would like to know.

The potential for user fees is concerning because like any human being, I don't want to pay for something I already get for "free." What concerns me more though is guys flying VFR into IMC or near IMC because they don't want to pay for user fees. Last thing I need is to be taking off into the clouds out of a small airport and find jimbob in his 62 Skyhawk right in my lap trying to stay under the radar. Not that this doesn't happen already but I can see more pilots breaking regs to avoid fees. There's plenty of weekend warriors out there that will have no problem flying like a cowboy to save a few bucks.

I do think though if the need for user fees becomes necessary, a fuel tax would work a lot better than just charging a flat fee. I don't think charging a Meridian flying from Iowa City to Dyersburg the same thing as a Global Express going from Van Nuys to Teterboro is really all that fair.

Quoting Av8tor (Reply 8): All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted."

Important words. Thank you for finding those facts.

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 10): If piston aircrafts are excluded, this fee will not hurt pilots flying for leisure, only private jets.

I think it should have been altitude driven. Why at first blush it looks ok to tax jets, it will kill of the single engine jet market. Anyone who can afford this fee is going to be able to afford a higher performance jet.

This also puts a stake into the air taxi market. It won't kill it... but it will make it that much harder to go. Fair or not? I haven't decided.

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 58): However, the cost allocation does assume that a corporate jet flying the exact same flight as an airline jet uses the same services and drives the same costs.

For jets flying commercial routes (or near commercial), I agree with the fee.

Lightsaber

Quoting cmf (Reply 2): How do you justify government subsidizing GA with billions of dollar under these circumstances?

The government does not "subsidize GA"; the government funds the national airspace system, including (in particular) the ATC structure, which exists almost entirely for the purposes of handling air carrier traffic.

Quoting nyc2theworld (Reply 31): Wait...let me get this straight. People complain on here that passengers don't pay enough in airfare and if they can't stand the price they should take the bus, drive, or mass transit. However, if someone want to fly in their private aircraft for some pizza for chicago they shouldn't have to bear some of the increased cost of aviation in this country?!!?

Nice clear analysis. Utterly false, too.

One key fact: GA is taxed at a much greater rate on fuel than are the air carriers (see below). Nonetheless, the putatively-required additional revenue could be gained by a modest increase in fuel taxes, thus using an already-extant collection and payment infrastructure, rather than creating yet another massive federal bureaucracy.

A charge per flight for ATC services, of any kind, will inevitably cause deaths.

Current FAA funding structure: $0.043 per-gallon tax on domestic
commercial aviation fuel;
Proposed FAA funding structure: $0.136 per gallon tax on domestic
commercial aviation fuel to fund AIP, EAS, and RE&D account.

Current FAA funding structure: $0.193 per-gallon tax on domestic
general aviation gasoline;
Proposed FAA funding structure: $0.70 per- gallon tax on both domestic
general aviation gasoline and jet fuel, with $0.564 per gallon to fund
air traffic control services and $0.136 per gallon to fund AIP, EAS,
and RE&D account.

Current FAA funding structure: $0.218 per-gallon tax on domestic
general aviation jet fuel.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 57): The kind of flight that would be covered by this kind of fee isn't yours. I just decided to check and see the price of an hour and a half flight since you mentioned it and it would be around $10,670.00 without fees. Would it really be so bad to add a $100.00 fee to this for the ATC service these operators already use? I really don't think so.

what are you talking about? a wet hour for me to fly at a 141 school is $78 for a 172R or warrior 3. A $100 dollar fee would be 128% increase on my per hour cost.

AS IT IS NOW, the proposed law still is only leisure pistons. The only place that it mentions all pistons being exempt is from a response by somebody that does not influence the proposed law itself. Until, i see it in writing, all pistons being excluded is just hearsay

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 57): AOPA is full of crap. If you believe their crap you would believe that the president would just get to make and change fees at will! CRAP

Would you like to provide some info that would otherwise prove the AOPA statement wrong? After finding out that congressmen are legally allowed to use insider information for trading, yet its illegal for a normal citizen to, due to the laws they have created without the public knowing, i have no doubt that the government could implement a user fee that would have no oversight and could be changed at will.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 68): The government does not "subsidize GA"

If not subsidizing then how do you characterize representing 16% of cost while only contributing 3%?

[Edited 2012-01-21 03:39:19]

Some of you guys crack me up. Apparently frees are great only if they apply to someone else. When commercial airlines started implementing anciliary fees for everything and anything in order to cover their operating losses rather than reduce their operating costs (i.e. unrealistic labor costs), that was, according to the majority in the airline industry, OK and a great business model. after all the private sector knows better. But now the shoe is on the other foot. The government wants to apply the same exact business model and implement anciliary fees in order to cover their "operating losses" (i.e. the deficit), but since it directly affects you rather than the general public, this is not OK.   
I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm against the fees that commercial airlines charge as well as this one but if you agree with the one and not the other then you're an hypocrite.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 57): Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 1): A user fee OF ANY SCALE will set back the supply of pilots in the future, hurting everyone from the casual sport flyer, to the smaller businesses that use general aviation, and all the way up to the airlines and ultimately the consumer as well! This fee is being pushed by the airlines because they are sick of paying the bills for business jet operators who are more than ever their competitors. The supply of pilots is way to big and that is causing major problems for all pilots. The casual sport flyer is not even covered by this new proposed rule. Look at that, every one of your objections shot down with factual information, amazing!

Quoting hohd (Reply 3):
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 57):

Are you telling me that the airlines are pushing FOR a tax on themselves? Really?! That's pretty amazing!

The supply of pilots is way to(o) big? Really? Have you tried hiring at the regional level? How many of the applicants have over 1500 hrs?

True, the piston operator will not be charged under this proposal, but the floodgates would be open, and it would only be a matter of time.


To those that argue the user should pay for their services via user fees, why am I taxed to pay for schools when I have no children in school? In fact, instead of a deduction for children, shouldn't your tax rate go up using this logic?

SLCPilot

UAL747DEN, are you an aviation professional or just an "enthusiast"?

[Edited 2012-01-21 06:45:24]

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 30): With that logic, the government might as well start charging a $100 fee every time you take your car. You are, after all, using subsidized roadways...

They already charge me a fee for driving my car. I pay fuel taxes which are supposed to pay for the road infrastructure that I use but then on top of that I have to pay excise taxes, highway tolls, bridge tolls, tunnel tolls, registration fees, inspection fees, and all of those just keep going up and up.

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 72): To those that argue the user should pay for their services via user fees, why am I taxed to pay for schools when I have no children in school? In fact, instead of a deduction for children, shouldn't your tax rate go up using this logic?

I totally agree with the idea that families with children should have to pay more. They are the ones receiving many more benefits (children's healthcare, welfare payments, more food stamps, schools, buses, etc.) than those of us who will probably never have children. I actually think people filing as single with no kids should be able to get some other kind of benefit in lieu of education for their children. Free health insurance during times of unemployment with food stamps or subsistence allowances, etc. would be a nice gesture to compensate for non-use of services.

Getting back to general aviation, I believe there should be some sort of fee or tax for private aviation. Pilot training schools and those flying for FAA-mandated hours should be exempt from this fee. Once those hours and training requirements are met, there needs to be some charge to compensate the government for use of various facilities. Besides...if you can afford to fly for fun (isn't renting an aircraft with fuel at least $150 an hour?), you should be able to afford the $100 user fee. Flying one's aircraft is a luxury, not a necessity, and implies you have the means to contribute your part to society.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 73): They already charge me a fee for driving my car. I pay fuel taxes which are supposed to pay for the road infrastructure that I use but then on top of that I have to pay excise taxes, highway tolls, bridge tolls, tunnel tolls, registration fees, inspection fees, and all of those just keep going up and up.

GA pays fuel taxes. They also pay landing fees (roughly equivalent to tolls), registration fees, state fees or taxes depending on the state where they're based, etc. So the two are pretty much equivalent in the number of fees that are charged.

-Mir

Quoting txkf2010 (Reply 7): Hohd, assuming you've never done any flight training but for someone to just get out of the gate without a $100 user fee, you're talk $60-$80,000 on flight training. Consider that being done at 300 hours of flying, now you're talking an addition $30,000.

Is it a user fee or a by hour fee?

We want to be a great country to live in, but we want the other guy to pay for it.

J

Quoting Mir (Reply 75):

  

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 74): if you can afford to fly for fun (isn't renting an aircraft with fuel at least $150 an hour?), you should be able to afford the $100 user fee

A lot of people I know of set a certain budget for flying every month. Let's say I earmark $500 per month for flying - that used to mean about 3 hours of flying ($150/hour is on the cheap side around here) if I fly alone, or about one $100 burger per month. 12 hours if I fly with 4 friends who agree to pay their share, or about one $100 burger per week.

With this user fee, if I fly alone, I have to stay within 1 hour of my home airport - much more restrictive - or I'll fly less often. If I still fly with friends, I'm down to 2 outings a month. You're cutting my flying by a factor of 2...  

  

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):    It's a fee. Get a grip

Otherwise known as a tax - without representation.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 11): Instead, jobs will be lost. And IMHO, we don't need more unemployment in the U.S. of A.

Exactly why higher taxes does not generate higher revenue in all but the shortest term.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 15): User fees bypass congressional budgeting processes and can be raised or expanded at will.

Yes - our politicians don't want to be accused of taxing - so they just fee. A fee that is mandatory is a tax. In Colorado - if your car breaks and you cannot drive it - and your license plates expire - then when you do fix the car and renew the plates - you pay up to $100 "fee" for the privileged of having a car that did not operate, you did not drive, and did not insure. BTW - you reach that at $100 at 4 months. Whose exempted? Politicians that are out of their district.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 19): Bingo. If it goes through it won't stop at jets.

Of course not. When have you ever seen the government reverse or reduce fees.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 37): This proposed rule isn't about the money. It's about the politics.

Bingo   

Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 41): o take control of every aspect of the private sector by oppressing it through the means of heavy taxation.

Bingo   

Quoting baldheadeddork (Reply 44): Who do you think pays for runway repairs, lighting, buffer land acquisition

Mostly - tax payers and users in the area.

Quoting txjim (Reply 51): They are currently working on an 8 mile stretch of freeway near my house that is expected to have $9.00 tolls during peak periods.

So you drive it 11 times per day - hmm - better tax your car. You are driving WAY to much - can't have you poluting that much - signed - Obama

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 57): I just decided to check and see the price of an hour and a half flight since you mentioned it and it would be around $10,670.00 without fees.

Are you claiming that a 1.5 hour flight costs the government 10K?

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 60): Gotta tax the poor man?

Very few, if any, poor men in the US pay taxes.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 68): Current FAA funding structure: $0.043 per-gallon tax on domestic commercial aviation fuel; Proposed FAA funding structure: $0.136 per gallon tax on domestic commercial aviation fuel to fund AIP, EAS, and RE&D account.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 68): Current FAA funding structure: $0.193 per-gallon tax on domestic general aviation gasoline; Proposed FAA funding structure: $0.70 per- gallon tax on both domestic general aviation gasoline and jet fuel, with $0.564 per gallon to fund air traffic control services and $0.136 per gallon to fund AIP, EAS, and RE&D account.

Appears to be a 316% and 360% increase to me.

Quoting odysseus9001 (Reply 77): We want to be a great country to live in, but we want the other guy to pay for it

Wrong - we don't want to pay for the other guy. BTW - many of those who agree with me _give more_ and _do more_ for their fellow citizens than those who accuse us of being evil bad people.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 79): Wrong - we don't want to pay for the other guy.

Exactly, so why do you expect me to pay for a cost you are incurring? Pay the fee and fly, or not fly. Whats so difficult about that?

Your entire post proves my point.

Honestly, I'm not against general aviation and subsidizing it a bit out my tax dollars (I participate in this forum, after all!), but I definitely see protesting GA fees and at the same time complaining about paying for someone else to be a tad hypocritical.

J