kallend 2,182 #1 November 9, 2006 CHANGES IN CONGRESS WILL AFFECT GA, SAYS AOPA (www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193663) On Tuesday, voters changed the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives, and apparently the Senate, from Republican to Democratic, and this will have a positive impact for pilots, says AOPA President Phil Boyer (www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/061108congress.html). "Now we can be assured of a fair hearing from people who understand aviation and aren't beholden to the White House," Boyer said. Aviation user fees have been strongly pushed by the Bush administration. But the power shift in the House will most likely put Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., in charge of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and he is a long-time friend to GA, AOPA said yesterday. http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193663... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #2 November 9, 2006 QuoteAviation user fees have been strongly pushed by the Bush administration You don't agree that those that use the services should pay for them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #3 November 9, 2006 >You don't agree that those that use the services should pay for them? Nope. No more than only sick people should pay for the CDC, or only fire victims should pay for fire departments, or only people with asthma should pay for the EPA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #4 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteAviation user fees have been strongly pushed by the Bush administration You don't agree that those that use the services should pay for them? They already do; the FAA's "aviation trust fund" is not broke, and is funded currently by fuel taxes on GA and passenger taxes for airline tickets.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #5 November 9, 2006 Quote>You don't agree that those that use the services should pay for them? Nope. No more than only sick people should pay for the CDC, or only fire victims should pay for fire departments, or only people with asthma should pay for the EPA. Everyone has to breath, and is subject to getting sick and being the victim of a fire. However, you have to choose to use aviation services - it's an optional choice. And those who choose not to use them, shouldn't have to pay for them for others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #6 November 9, 2006 QuoteNope. No more than only sick people should pay for the CDC, or only fire victims should pay for fire departments, or only people with asthma should pay for the EPA. So you don't think that when I go to a park I should pay a entrance fee either? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #7 November 9, 2006 >However, you have to choose to use aviation services - it's an optional choice. 11/12/2001 - Five people in Queens are killed by an A-300. 5/25/1979 - Three people in Chicago killed by a DC-10. 6/25/1978 - Seven people in San Diego killed by an MD-80. None of those people chose to use aviation services. The reason that so few people on the ground in the US have been killed by planes that fall out of the sky is that we have a pretty good FAA/NTSB/ATC system that keeps planes (relatively) well-maintained, keeps them separated and figures out why they crash. So I think in the future we should continue to publically fund the systems that keep airplanes from falling on our heads. It benefits everyone who lives under US airspace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #8 November 9, 2006 >So you don't think that when I go to a park I should pay a >entrance fee either? Nope, you should. If you don't want to pay, you can choose not to go to the park. If you don't want to pay for ATC, you can't just tell airplanes not to fly over your house, or your kid's school, or your place of employment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #9 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteNope. No more than only sick people should pay for the CDC, or only fire victims should pay for fire departments, or only people with asthma should pay for the EPA. So you don't think that when I go to a park I should pay a entrance fee either? Since you missed it the first time, aviation users already pay for the services by taxes on various aspects of aviation - just not on a pay-per-use user fee (which has had really negative impact on aviation in Canada and Europe).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #10 November 9, 2006 QuoteNope, you should. If you don't want to pay, you can choose not to go to the park. If you don't want to pay for ATC, you can't just tell airplanes not to fly over your house, or your kid's school, or your place of employment. Fair, but can you ask the CDC to do research for you for no cost? Certain basic things should not be user only as you have pointed out, but you think users have no responsibility for paying for the things they use? Kallend had a great answer, but does it cover the whole cost? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #11 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteNope, you should. If you don't want to pay, you can choose not to go to the park. If you don't want to pay for ATC, you can't just tell airplanes not to fly over your house, or your kid's school, or your place of employment. Fair, but can you ask the CDC to do research for you for no cost? Certain basic things should not be user only as you have pointed out, but you think users have no responsibility for paying for the things they use? Kallend had a great answer, but does it cover the whole cost? yes, the Aviation Trust Fund is in surplus.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #12 November 9, 2006 QuoteSince you missed it the first time, aviation users already pay for the services by taxes on various aspects of aviation - just not on a pay-per-use user fee (which has had really negative impact on aviation in Canada and Europe). Hey. I DIDN'T MISS IT THE FIRST TIME. I aksed a question...Are you this rude to your students when they ask a question? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #13 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteSince you missed it the first time, aviation users already pay for the services by taxes on various aspects of aviation - just not on a pay-per-use user fee (which has had really negative impact on aviation in Canada and Europe). Hey. I DIDN'T MISS IT THE FIRST TIME. I aksed a question...Are you this rude to your students when they ask a question? In France it costs an additional $30 to have the runway lights on for a night take-off or landing. That is definitely encouraging safety, right! If weather briefings cost $25, many pilots will simply avoid getting one. The system right now cannot be avoided because the fuel tax or seat tax is automatically collected and efficiently collected. Can you imagine the govt. bureaucracy needed to collect user fees for every take-off, landing, call to ATC, file a flight plan, weather briefing, etc?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #14 November 9, 2006 >but can you ask the CDC to do research for you for no cost? Well, no. Everything the CDC costs money, and it comes out of our taxes. The FAA/NTSN/ATC is similar, although the bulk of aviation services are paid for by some very specific aviation-centric taxes (like aviation fuel.) > Certain basic >things should not be user only as you have pointed out, but you think >users have no responsibility for paying for the things they use? Optional/elective things - like additional licenses, endorsements, check rides - no problem charging for them. Basic safety - airport lighting, separation services, weather briefers, flight following, NTSB investigations, airspace updates, NOTAMs - should _not_ be charged for. They benefit both users and people on the ground, and it would be a bad idea to add incentives to not use these services, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #15 November 9, 2006 The AOPA'a argument against user fees makes a lot of sense. From a MArch 13th 2006 article: QuoteThe airlines' proposal for funding the FAA is nothing more than an attempt to grab control of the air traffic control system and shift costs to other users, according to AOPA. Last week, the airlines announced their "statement of principles" for a new FAA funding mechanism. "And it is more than ironic that a chronically bankrupt industry that has mismanaged its affairs to the point that it can't even pay full employee pensions is now telling Congress what it 'must' do to run the FAA as a business," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "The air traffic control system was built to meet the peak traffic demands of the airlines," said Boyer. "The marginal cost to add GA into the system doesn't even rise above the noise level. Look at it this way — if GA stopped flying tomorrow, how much less would it cost to run the air traffic control system? It didn't cut costs any when GA was banned from Reagan National Airport." In this respect, the AOPA is helping keep the cost of jump tickets down. I can't imagine any DZO not passing on the cost of "user fees"."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #16 November 9, 2006 I want to see AOPA get Meigs re-opened. Chicago is losing a lot to conventions going elsewhere than McCormick Place, because the Execs can no longer land at Meigs. Palwaukee is no substitute, nor is Gary or West Chicago. Unfortunately Daley is only coming out of office feet-first, like his father.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #17 November 9, 2006 QuoteI want to see AOPA get Meigs re-opened. Chicago is losing a lot to conventions going elsewhere than McCormick Place, because the Execs can no longer land at Meigs. Palwaukee is no substitute, nor is Gary or West Chicago. Unfortunately Daley is only coming out of office feet-first, like his father. I agree! It was an outrage the way Meigs field was closed down!"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #18 November 9, 2006 QuoteYou don't agree that those that use the services should pay for them? Do you have any idea how much an airline like the one I work for pays to operate at an airport? Hell they have to pay just for the thing to sit on the ground. Hangar fees, fuel taxes, rent for the land that the airport sits on. Everybody has there hands in the pockets of aviation. Everybody thinks aviation is this cash cow which it is far from being in this time and age.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #19 November 9, 2006 Quotewe should continue to publically fund the systems that keep airplanes from falling on our heads. It benefits everyone who lives under US airspace. By that logic, the public should subsidize our skydiving costs, so that we can have modern airplanes equipped with all the safety gizmos, and modern skydiving equipment for all. Otherwise, we're going to crash now and then and hurt innocent people on the ground. That'll teach 'em not to pony-up for my optional hobby! Free AAD's for everyone! Woohoo! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #20 November 9, 2006 >Free AAD's for everyone! Sorry for attempting a discussion. You win, whatever your position is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #21 November 9, 2006 QuoteCan you imagine the govt. bureaucracy needed to collect user fees for every take-off, landing, call to ATC, file a flight plan, weather briefing, etc? Thank you, that was a great answer. Do you have any source to show that the current system generates enough money? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #22 November 9, 2006 QuoteOptional/elective things - like additional licenses, endorsements, check rides - no problem charging for them. Basic safety - airport lighting, separation services, weather briefers, flight following, NTSB investigations, airspace updates, NOTAMs - should _not_ be charged for. They benefit both users and people on the ground, and it would be a bad idea to add incentives to not use these services, How about landing fees? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #23 November 9, 2006 QuoteDo you have any idea how much an airline like the one I work for pays to operate at an airport? Hell they have to pay just for the thing to sit on the ground. Hangar fees, fuel taxes, rent for the land that the airport sits on. Everybody has there hands in the pockets of aviation. Everybody thinks aviation is this cash cow which it is far from being in this time and age. I am very aware of the costs to run an airline. I am a pilot in addition to being a skydiver. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #24 November 9, 2006 >How about landing fees? A good point. I think currently landing fees are implemented pretty reasonably; they typically are used at larger airports where a) they discourage smaller GA aircraft (which is both good and bad) and b) are put towards the expenses of running a larger airport. I don't see it as much of a safety issue since pilots are not going to decide not to land to save money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #25 November 9, 2006 Quote>How about landing fees? A good point. I think currently landing fees are implemented pretty reasonably; they typically are used at larger airports where a) they discourage smaller GA aircraft (which is both good and bad) and b) are put towards the expenses of running a larger airport So IMO not all use fees are bad. QuoteI don't see it as much of a safety issue since pilots are not going to decide not to land to save money. And I would agree that safety issues should never be short changed. How does the budget look for ATC? Do they need money? If so would you rather see: 1. Increased general taxes to pay for the cost 2. More user fees. 3. A higher tax on fuels ect? I think a combination of the three would be the best mix...But I am open to new information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
