Change in Congress a positive for aviation - AOPA

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

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.

Quote

I 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.

The FAA aviation trust fund is in the black and is projected to remain that way. I **suspect** it is used to offset the deficit, rather like the Social Security trust fund is used.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The AOPA'a argument against user fees makes a lot of sense. From a MArch 13th 2006 article:

Quote

The 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".

See, this is what I was gonna ask. I love being the devil's advocate, but here we are advocating the taxation of our sport.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

we 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!

You realize that the US mail is sent via the airlines sometimes. And you can say that your stamp covers the cost so you are subsidizing your own use.... hardly, and the cost is picked up by your taxes. Aviation, even experimental and GA aids to the successes and advancements to EVERYONE. Burt Rutan and hos Kinard, now most airline acft have them. List could go on....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I am a pilot in addition to being a skydiver.

Hopefully not at the same time.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

The AOPA'a argument against user fees makes a lot of sense. From a MArch 13th 2006 article:

Quote

The 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".

See, this is what I was gonna ask. I love being the devil's advocate, but here we are advocating the taxation of our sport.

The DZO already pays the excise tax on aviation fuel.

An efficient revenue collection system is in place. It has generated a surplus (unspent) in the Airport and Airways Trust Fund of roughly $2Bn at the end of 2005. No pilot is discouraged from getting a weather briefing or using ATC services with this process.

Moving to "user fees" WILL discourage pilots from using these safety services. And the revenue collection process will be cumbersome and add additional overhead. Every transaction will have to be recorded and a bill produced and delivered. Can you imagine if a busy DZ, making 50 loads a day, is billed for each take off, landing, ATC call (which is required by FAR), call to FSS for winds aloft....

The ATC services are set up for and on behalf of the airlines (as the most casual glance at the class B and class C airspace will show). This proposal is a transparent attempt by the airline industry to offload some of the costs for a service run primarily for its benefit onto general aviation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Aviation, even experimental and GA aids to the successes and advancements to EVERYONE. Burt Rutan and hos Kinard, now most airline acft have them. List could go on....

So the government should pay to buy airplanes for anyone who wants them, and fund experimental research by anyone?

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Aviation, even experimental and GA aids to the successes and advancements to EVERYONE. Burt Rutan and hos Kinard, now most airline acft have them. List could go on....

So the government should pay to buy airplanes for anyone who wants them, and fund experimental research by anyone?

Totally illogical straw man.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Aviation, even experimental and GA aids to the successes and advancements to EVERYONE. Burt Rutan and hos Kinard, now most airline acft have them. List could go on....

So the government should pay to buy airplanes for anyone who wants them, and fund experimental research by anyone?

Could you avoid the issue any more? I was saying how there is a payback for whatever the gov subsidizes. If the gov stopped subsidizing things like airports, the growth of GA would cease and any technolgy would be lost in that it wouldn't be gained.

We gain a lot of technology from the military too, I don;t hear ya bitching about that. Tech iis tech; we should do what we can advocate all of it as well as the saftey benefits gained. Do you sleep better knowing the pilots above your head and your families heads are blessed with the best of weather and other services?

[diverborg 0]

Warning!! Warning!! Conservative here siding with the liberals.

Cmon John just because we hardly ever agree with these guys doesn't mean we have to disagree with everything. User fees suck!!!

On a more serious note I think most of the arguments against them have already been said. The trust fund is already in the positive, we don't need another govt piggy bank to be pumping money into that we'll never see the benefit because the govt will tap into it for other purposes (just like social security). General Aviation already pays more than enough taxes to support its usage.
The economic impact of user fees would be detrimental to general aviation and IMO would cause an overall loss in fuel taxes and such due to less usage. Not to mention the lack of future demand for aircraft manufacturers as well as mx personnel, and R&D. The general aviation industry is a huge part of our economy in the US and creates a huge number of jobs.

Would you be for creating a car starting fee for every time you pulled onto a public roadway even though theoretically the wheel and fuel taxes you already pay have created a trust fund in surplus of what is needed to maintain these roads?

I hate to say it, but Bush is using this as a political tool to gain interest in the vast majority of the public that are ignorant about this subject, and who think that they would never be affected because they don't use the system.

[kallend 2,182]

Well, it happened. The Bush administration's 2008 budget proposes user fees to fund the FAA, in place of the current fuel tax that is both efficient and has produced a surplus.

From www.aopa.org

"The administration is manufacturing an FAA 'funding crisis' in a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to divert attention away from the real issue — the need to address the problems that constrain capacity, efficiency, and new technology adoption," said AOPA President Phil Boyer.

"They are attempting an end-around of Congress to put the world's safest, most efficient, and largest air traffic control system into the hands of airline barons who've flown their own businesses into bankruptcy," Boyer said at the National Press Club on February 1.

And taking Congress out of the mix would be a very bad idea, according to Ken Mead, the former Department of Transportation inspector general who joined Boyer at the podium.

"You need the checks and balances of the U.S. Congress," said Mead. He recalled that Congress had shut down the microwave landing system and the previous attempt at modernization — the advanced automation system (AAS) — when it had spun out of control and gone well over budget.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

In Canada the user pay system is not what hurt GA. What hurt is that the exise taxes on fuel were retained and diverted into general revenue at a time when the federal government was struggling with a large deficit (sound familliar). The user fees did not change the way we pay for service, but were an additional tax burden.
The truth is that Cessnas and the like pay a monthly fee that amounts to a great subsidy from the 50 hr/year weekend pilot to the commercial 200-400hr/year dz operator. Small twins like a king Air pay a daily rate which works well for a busy operation, but tends to discourage that one friday night load on a cessna-weekday/turbine-weekend dz.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

In Canada the user pay system is not what hurt GA. What hurt is that the exise taxes on fuel were retained and diverted into general revenue at a time when the federal government was struggling with a large deficit (sound familliar). The user fees did not change the way we pay for service, but were an additional tax burden.
The truth is that Cessnas and the like pay a monthly fee that amounts to a great subsidy from the 50 hr/year weekend pilot to the commercial 200-400hr/year dz operator. Small twins like a king Air pay a daily rate which works well for a busy operation, but tends to discourage that one friday night load on a cessna-weekday/turbine-weekend dz.

The administration's proposal includes an INCREASE in the fuel tax from $0.19 to $0.70 per gallon, AS WELL as user fees.

How will that affect jump ticket prices?

Nice to know you'll be subsidizing United Airlines every time you jump. Thanks, Bush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,182]

Another group opposed to Bush's attempt to bail out the airlines:

ANTI-USER FEE CHORUS GROWS DOWN ON THE FARM
(www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/857-full.html#195081)
The National Farmers' Union (NFU) has joined () the juggernaut of
opposition to the FAA's funding proposal, saying it's nothing more
than a bailout of airlines on the backs of small-town America. In a
news release, NFU President Pat Buis said the plan to more than triple
the existing general aviation fuel tax will have a direct impact on
rural residents. "Local airfields often provide the fastest and most
efficient means of transportation because the big corporate airlines
concentrate most of their service at only the nation's largest
airports," Buis said. "The FAA proposal to impose user fees and tax
increases will deal a heavy blow to farmers and rural communities who
depend on general aviation--for this reason we are strongly opposing
user fees and new taxes in any form." Also joining the chorus is the
Alaska State legislature.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.