0
kallend

Change in Congress a positive for aviation - AOPA

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Aviation
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



So you don't think that when I go to a park I should pay a entrance fee either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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).



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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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).



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".
"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



I agree! It was an outrage the way Meigs field was closed down!
"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You 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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?



Thank you, that was a great answer. Do you have any source to show that the current system generates enough money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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,



How about landing fees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



I am very aware of the costs to run an airline. I am a pilot in addition to being a skydiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0