GA User fee's

[PLF 0]

Wonder if this will increase a lift ticket price... Thanks George.. From the AOPA web.

White House: No user fees, no signature
By AOPA ePublishing staff

As the Senate began debate on the FAA funding bill in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, that same spirit apparently didn’t extend to the White House.

The president’s top advisors made it very clear on April 29 that if Congress sends him a bill that does not include user fees, and does not give the airlines greater control over the air traffic control system, they want him to veto the FAA funding legislation.

The White House once again cited its failed FAA funding bill as the model, and said the legislation currently under consideration by Congress does not align “FAA’s revenues with its costs through fair fees linked to usage of the system,” nor does it include “a broader set of aviation stakeholders in the oversight and management” of the air traffic control system. (Administration proposals would give the majority users of air traffic control—the airlines—also majority say in ATC management.)

The “Statement of Administration Policy” also objected to increased Airport Improvement Program funding and took issue with the labor provisions in the House version of the FAA funding bill. “If the President is presented with a bill that not only excludes the critical reforms proposed by the Administration, but also includes provisions that would further exacerbate an untenable status quo, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto it,” according to the policy.

“We’re extremely disappointed that the administration continues clinging to discredited funding concepts that have no popular support from either the public or their elected representatives,” said AOPA President Phil Boyer. “The aviation industry and both parties in Congress are very close to reasonable compromises that ensure the future of the aviation system. For the administration to put that all at risk at this point is incomprehensible.”

The Senate is expected to finish its version of an FAA funding bill this week. The House version was passed last September. Existing aviation taxes and FAA funding will expire June 30 if a new funding bill is not signed into law before then.

April 30, 2008

[bfilarsky 0]

Fucking douche bags!!!! User fees are a horrible idea, always have been always will be. They're just trying to give the airlines more control over our national airspace and air traffic control - why the fuck would you let someone control something so important who can't even keep their own asses out of bankruptcy?!!! They're trying to offload costs from the airlines onto everyone else, blaming congestion on GA. Congestion is because of all the damn regional jets, not because of a couple Cessna Citations or even 172's. Pure bullshit.

You are already helping pay for ATC services, since you buy a lift ticket which buys fuel, which is taxed to help fund ATC. There are several different ideas for how the user fees would be implemented, depending on how they do so would determine whether or not a jump plane would have to pay, hence your lift ticket going up or not.

[Trent 0]

Here's my conspiracy theory if they pass the user fee BS:

Thousands of GA people and flights will stop using ATC services since they'll be charged if they do. Airlines will have more "close" calls than normal and piss and moan about how these uncontrolled GA aircraft (who are still following airspace rules) are getting in the way since they're not in contact with ATC. This will be a safety hazard to them as well as cost them money for the maneuvering they'll have to do. Joe public and the morons in congress will buy into every word the airlines say and GA will disappear, unless you can afford to pay for ATC, which will shortly be in airline hands and all but unavailable to the GA pilot.

I've already written my senators and congressman, but I left the conspiracy part out!

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 1,623]

The airlines have so badly managed their business that their only option to avoid bankruptcy now is to offload the costs of the ATC system, of which they are the primary beneficiaries, onto someone else. We've already seen a bunch of airlines offloading their pension costs on to the taxpayers.

And as for putting the airlines in control of the system, that's like handing the car keys to a drunk.

...

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

[squarecanopy 0]

Quote

The airlines have so badly managed their business that their only option to avoid bankruptcy now is to offload the costs of the ATC system, of which they are the primary beneficiaries, onto someone else. We've already seen a bunch of airlines offloading their pension costs on to the taxpayers.

And as for putting the airlines in control of the system, that's like handing the car keys to a drunk.

WELL SAID.

Just burning a hole in the sky.....

[Trent 0]

Quote

And as for putting the airlines in control of the system, that's like handing the car keys to a drunk.

Yeah, that's for sure. Watch though, the government will give them tons of money to take it over, a-la Lockheed Martin and FSS... only much much worse. That could be the new way to disguise airline welfare.

Oh, hello again!

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

The airlines have so badly managed their business that their only option to avoid bankruptcy now is to offload the costs of the ATC system, of which they are the primary beneficiaries, onto someone else. We've already seen a bunch of airlines offloading their pension costs on to the taxpayers.

And as for putting the airlines in control of the system, that's like handing the car keys to a drunk.

Yup...and farther down the road when they have the entire system so mucked up and tailored to their needs alone...

General aviation will be the red headed step-child used to blame any & all problems the system encounters, further eroding free usage...and by 'free' I'm not just talking about $$$.

From the realm of the conspiracy theory...

With all the mergers and talks of mergers and the airlines that are going belly up...mis-management, fuel costs, lower service standards, horrible on time records, over crowing the skies over hubs...on & on.

I would be real curious as to the business plan the 'powers that be' are following, and what the 'big picture' looks like 10 years from now...2 maybe 3 'Majors' with specific routes not in competition...'cattle car' cabin service for the consumer who will be forced to ride the only 'bus' going to their destination and pay whatever that carrier wants to charge to be profitable.

I fear we are only seeing the beginning of a real 'change' in airline corporate positioning and the public transportation business as a whole.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[peggs82 0]

AOPA is a good place to help out in this fight
It seems that this administration cares not for everyday people, and only for large corps....It helps to have a lobby group on your side
Membership is only $39 per year...not even 2 jump tickets to help preserve your mostly affordable sport!

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

AOPA is a good place to help out in this fight
It seems that this administration cares not for everyday people, and only for large corps....It helps to have a lobby group on your side
Membership is only $39 per year...not even 2 jump tickets to help preserve your mostly affordable sport!

Absolutely!

Been a member for 20 some years, and often wonder why some OTHER 'special interest' organizations I belong to don't operate as well as the AOPA.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Broke 0]

Quote

And as for putting the airlines in control of the system, that's like handing the car keys to a drunk.

Isn't that what they did when they put Ben Bernacke as the head of the Federal Reserve.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[EDYDO 0]

My personal view and request.

A lot of people have worked really hard (myself included) to find a way to fund aviation without user fees. We are quite close to getting the Senate and the House to agree (a near impossibility in itself). Now we find out that the President's advisors, who have essentially been out of the informational loop, are getting involved and want to kill the compromise funding bill.

I am aware that email to government agencies carries little weight, but perhaps if it is done in numbers they may get the idea. Unless someone has a better idea, please flood the White House comment list with your views about this.

There are two links below. One is an email link to the White House and the other is a link to the Senate Aviation Sub-Committee. My Senator is on that Committee. You can check to see if yours is as well. If so, you can do even more by explaining why skydiving aircraft are different from others. At one point it was proposed that all turbine aircraft would pay a $25.00 user fee per takeoff. This could possibly be argued with aircraft that go 1000 miles per takeoff and use Air Traffic Control Services through the entire trip, including instrument landing facilities. Skydiving aircraft use very few of these ATC services and make a large number of takeoffs per day, putting a large burden on skydivers and YES, it will cost about $1.00 more per seat if it passes. Certainly, if it comes to turbine user fees, skydiving aircraft should be exempt.

Ed



[email protected]

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctc&lang=&commcode=scommerce_av

[Broke 0]

Maybe someone should send a letter to GB sr.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[bfilarsky 0]

Quote

My personal view and request.

A lot of people have worked really hard (myself included) to find a way to fund aviation without user fees. We are quite close to getting the Senate and the House to agree (a near impossibility in itself). Now we find out that the President's advisors, who have essentially been out of the informational loop, are getting involved and want to kill the compromise funding bill.

I am aware that email to government agencies carries little weight, but perhaps if it is done in numbers they may get the idea. Unless someone has a better idea, please flood the White House comment list with your views about this.

There are two links below. One is an email link to the White House and the other is a link to the Senate Aviation Sub-Committee. My Senator is on that Committee. You can check to see if yours is as well. If so, you can do even more by explaining why skydiving aircraft are different from others. At one point it was proposed that all turbine aircraft would pay a $25.00 user fee per takeoff. This could possibly be argued with aircraft that go 1000 miles per takeoff and use Air Traffic Control Services through the entire trip, including instrument landing facilities. Skydiving aircraft use very few of these ATC services and make a large number of takeoffs per day, putting a large burden on skydivers and YES, it will cost about $1.00 more per seat if it passes. Certainly, if it comes to turbine user fees, skydiving aircraft should be exempt.

Ed



[email protected]

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctc&lang=&commcode=scommerce_av

I thought the $25 for turbines was for activating an IFR flight plan? I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure thats the deal. Shitty deal, however it doesn't affect skydivers (yet).

The REAL problem here, is the camel's nose under the tent. The first wave of user fees probably won't be all that bad - but increasing them will be much easier once they're already there.

[EDYDO 0]

Some have considered Flight Following to fall under the same category as IFR Flight plans. Nothing has passed, so nothing affects skydivers yet (or anyone else for that matter), but we had better not drop the ball here or it could be in our laps.

Ed

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Some have considered Flight Following to fall under the same category as IFR Flight plans. Nothing has passed, so nothing affects skydivers yet (or anyone else for that matter), but we had better not drop the ball here or it could be in our laps.

Ed

Looks like it's dead for this session.

www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080506funding.html?WT.svl=FlashHP1

...

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

[Unstable 8]

If it makes you guys feel any better, we are not alone. Down here in Wichita, Cessna, Hawker-Beechcraft (Raytheon) and Leerjet are all fighting this tooth and nail. I read the Cessna Employee Newsletters every week, and I promise you they are going to be a HUGE part in overcoming this.

The Big Airlines make a few bogus claims. Well, lets call them half truths. "There are now 5 times as many business and personal jets on the ramps today as there are commercial airliners. This causes the congestion" is the biggest one. From a frustrated flyer's point of view, this is a good point! But Let's look at this realistically.

1. People that own these Jets many times buy into them for the Sole purpose of Not crowding the Airspace. You can get into tiny little airports with them -easing the Problem.

2. NOBODY with one of those Jets flies it like the Airlines do. A commercial airliner is going to make easily 3 runs a day, 5 days a week, minus maintenance. A 737 lands at La Guardia, drops off it's 300+ heads, picks then next few up, and off it goes back again into crowded airspace. Farmer McBrown with his 172 or even Richie Rich with his Cessna Soverign are only flying maybe a few times a month, IF they are busy.

I call bullshit. I consider myself a good Republican, but the stuff Bush is pulling now just makes me lose faith in him. We already pay taxpayer dollars to get Delta and Northwest into cities they can't afford to fly into without government $, (Like my hometown, Manhattan KS).

=========Shaun ==========

[EDYDO 0]

User fees just sound so fair until you realize you are still paying the tax that was originally intended to pay for that service.

I had not seen that update, thanks. It really sucks that we did so much work and it is still on the table though. We are not out of the water. This is the way it seems to work. It is dead for this session, the proponents continue working, people forget about it and then it comes up again and is passed. Once our legislators take a position, they usually stick with it. We need to make our voices heard now. Once user fees take a foot hold, they will expand. They always do.

Ed