AOPA not happy with Delta

[DornierPilot]

Snowbum,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your comments are your genuine thoughts and not just flamebait. (For a minute, I thought I was reading InstructorDude's nonsense.)

Where do I begin?? If you think for one minute that props will remain exempt once the user fee infrastructure is put into place (a la Canada and Europe), you're sadly mistaken.

What other Transportation sector is financed completely by users fees? If you think this is a good idea ("The users should pay to use the infrastructure on a pay as you go system"), then why don't we make every mile of highway in the country a toll road? The same logic you are using applies to this example. Those that don't own a car shouldn't pay any taxes used to construct roadways since they obviously don't benefit directly from them. Let all the drivers pay tolls to drive. Great thinking.

The ATC system (in it's current form) was put in place for the airlines. If you grounded all GA flights that use IFR services, would the FAA be able to close many towers? Would they be able to lay off many controllers? Of course not!!! The GA component does not impact the ATC system in any meaningful way when it comes to additional costs to handle them. The infrastructure required to keep 135/121 ops has to be in place whether or not GA is in the picture.

As a longtime AOPA/EAA member that someday hopes to be able to afford my own aircraft and pass the real joy of flying on to my kids, I fear uninformed people such as yourself will turn the US GA experience into the unaffordable mess the rest of the world has.

Regards,

 

[JonnyKnoxville]

Being that this is in the MAJOR airline section, how is increasing the cost to fly GA going to hurt. Don't we as pilots want to see our pay and benefits restored? Could limiting the supply of new pilots because it weeds out alot due to being cost prohibitive? How wood that be a bad thing? The supply of Drs has always been tightly controlled via limited enrollment in medical school, not due to lack of smart people applying. Ok, feel free to jump my ass now.

I could not have said it better myself. The power of labor unions are almost nonexistant, but good old economics can definitely solve our problems. The point made about doctors is dead-on. If we want to save this profession we have to look at future pilots from the supply-side just as doctors do.

 

[BoilerUP]

I could not have said it better myself. The power of labor unions are almost nonexistant, but good old economics can definitely solve our problems. The point made about doctors is dead-on. If we want to save this profession we have to look at future pilots from the supply-side just as doctors do.

Financially damaging the folks that use airplanes for business or personal use that have no desire whatsoever to fly professionally simply to lower the number of pilots is a sh!tty, selfish thing to desire.

 

[JonnyKnoxville]

Financially damaging the folks that use airplanes for business or personal use that have no desire whatsoever to fly professionally simply to lower the number of pilots is a sh!tty, selfish thing to desire.

If there is one thing I have learned in aviation, it is that all pilots are selfish and only look out for themselves. Age 60, scope, unions, contract negotiations, etc.

I have no problem stating that this would benefit my career and yes it is selfish. Your reasons against this proposed change are not being argued for the improvement of aviation as a whole, just for the improvement of aviation as you see it and how you will benefit. So I am no more selfish than you or anyone else making any argument for or against anything on this site. For your sake, I hope you can continue to fly your general aviation airplane without additional fees. As far as I am concerned, I just want flying to return as profession and a career for me, not to continue as just another job.

 

[Allen1]

If there is one thing I have learned in aviation, it is that all pilots are selfish and only look out for themselves. Age 60, scope, unions, contract negotiations, etc.

I have no problem stating that this would benefit my career and yes it is selfish. Your reasons against this proposed change are not being argued for the improvement of aviation as a whole, just for the improvement of aviation as you see it and how you will benefit. So I am no more selfish than you or anyone else making any argument for or against anything on this site. For your sake, I hope you can continue to fly your general aviation airplane without additional fees. As far as I am concerned, I just want flying to return as profession and a career for me, not to continue as just another job.

I hope you like flying your CRJ because if this did affect jobs in GA there are plenty of us that have a lot of previous 121 time that can give you some competition for your next job. Don't be so narrow minded most of us that are flying GA now never thought we would be here, but stuff happens and here we sit. Hope your luck is better than mine. I think you to arrogant to realize this though.

 

[FlyDouglasJets]

Practically the whole rest of the planet has user fees -- and there are very few non-wealthy pilots outside of the U.S. The writing on the wall couldn't be more obvious.

The GA/Bizjet crowd has been riding on the airlines tax coat-tails for yrs. The airline industry is suffering. This is a quick cure. The long term impact will be a shortage of qual'ed aircrews in the US, but that will take yrs. Then, airlines will have to startup the ab-init training, just like all the EU/Asia carriers are doing today. It's a catch 22, eventually the airlines will have to pay, cause right now, they are getting free qaul'ed crews from the Military/GA ranks, that will end, eventually.

 

[BoilerUP]

For your sake, I hope you can continue to fly your general aviation airplane without additional fees.

I fly the canuck jet just like you do...

As far as I am concerned, I just want flying to return as profession and a career for me, not to continue as just another job.

Me too...but that starts with pilots being unified and taking the risk of making a stand for those improvements, not with financially screwing non-airline pilots who use airplanes for non-airline purposes.

 

[atrdriver]

no there aren't. if you are an aopa member you are not a professional pilot, you are a ********************ing tool.

I'm an AOPA member, and proud to be one. You sure like the use the label "tool". You must be reminded of what one looks like whenever you look in the mirror.

 

[atrdriver]

The GA/Bizjet crowd has been riding on the airlines tax coat-tails for yrs. The airline industry is suffering. This is a quick cure. The long term impact will be a shortage of qual'ed aircrews in the US, but that will take yrs. Then, airlines will have to startup the ab-init training, just like all the EU/Asia carriers are doing today. It's a catch 22, eventually the airlines will have to pay, cause right now, they are getting free qaul'ed crews from the Military/GA ranks, that will end, eventually.

No, the quick fix is also the long term fix. Airlines need to raise ticket prices when their costs go up. Consumers don't blink when they have to pay increased prices at the pump, or their groceries cost more because of transportation costs, but the airlines can't seem to grasp that concept.

 

[shooter]

No, the quick fix is also the long term fix. Airlines need to raise ticket prices when their costs go up. Consumers don't blink when they have to pay increased prices at the pump, or their groceries cost more because of transportation costs, but the airlines can't seem to grasp that concept.

customers DO blink when prices at the pump go up, sometimes they cry. But you are spot on when you say the airlines need to price tickets in relation to their costs. You don't see those gas stations telling the clerks to take a pay cut so the price at the pump will be cheaper. Maybe I don't see the "big picture" when airlines operate in this manner, but right now I just think they are run by the same breed of dumb@$$.

 

[Diesel]

Maybe someone should ask Southwest to stop getting their pos 737's up to 410 and doing .73. They've made the biggest speed bump there is.

 

[727gm]

Snowbum-
Do you actually believe that if GA(Cubs to BBJ's) were to be saddled with user fees , that airline tickets would decline ONE CENT? Right...The check is in the mail....

The airlines get special privileges that most of GA doesn't have - the right to hold out and charge for transportation to the public. The CEO's messages are propaganda, pure and simple, much like their claims that Northwest's schedule problems are due to "pilot absenteeism".

I'm a professional pilot and also proud to be an AOPA and SSA member.

 

[igneousy2]

How many BBJ's are flying out there? Enough to really make a difference?

Look, we all know anybody who can afford a large biz jet can afford a few more bucks in taxes. AOPA knows this too. The problem is, the FAA has a poor track record of differentiating segments of GA. Any new rule intended for just the rich would inevitably affect the not-so-rich as well. Remember the luxury tax during the 90's? It killed the yacht industry which had the effect of hurting only the not-so-rich. User fees for GA will have a detrimental effect on safety and will stifle the whole industry. Add in the cost for the collection infrastucture and user-fees would likely cost the taxpayers money.

The point was how disparate the treatment was. A blip is a blip. The difference in the taxes in this example is enough to pay one controller for two weeks. You are correct, business jets don't make a large impact by themselves. But your logic is flawed - We should do no single thing if it, by itself, does not fix the problem.

There is no one solution to the problem all of the fixes are cumulative. At the busiest airports we will need to do all of the things people are talking about. This is not a question of doing one thing or another. At the busiest airports we need to prohibit GA, implement slot and gauge restrictions, implement ADS-B, redo the airspace, AND implement RNP approaches. If we only do one or two of these things it will only push the problem out and nothing will be fixed.

It is ridicules that a Citation with 2 pax on board lands at LGA in a slot that could have been filled with a 737.

Later

 

[Shaheen]

no there aren't. if you are an aopa member you are not a professional pilot, you are a ********************ing tool.

And if you pull your head out of your *** and smell fresh air - and read more than you watch TV, you'd notice that fair amount of airline pilots and even Astornauts are members of AOPA...and to help you with your ignorance; airline pilots are NOT the only professionals in the game...

did it help?

 

[JonnyKnoxville]

I fly the canuck jet just like you do...

Me too...but that starts with pilots being unified and taking the risk of making a stand for those improvements, not with financially screwing non-airline pilots who use airplanes for non-airline purposes.

Taking a stand does not work these days with our current political leaders. Not trying to start a political debate but recent history has proven it time and time again. So if strikes do nothing, unions have no power. We have to win this fight by playing management's game and that is the game of economics. I am not trying to screw anyone. All I am saying is that I will not be supporting AOPA's effort to fight this change. This change will result in a better career for anyone who choses to fly as a job because it makes a greater barrier to entry for new pilots. Nothing personal...just good old free market supply and demand working for professional pilots for once.

It is funny how airlines are arguing for this. They do not see what kind of problems this will cause them with the pilot groups in the very near future. I can't wait!

 

[VeeOne]

Guys- it is quite simple. If it is a revenue flight (Part 135, etc.) they should pay taxes. It isn't right for one group (airlines) to shoulder the entire burden. I also don't harbor any pitty for someone who has to pay taxes for flying their G IV from MIA to the west coast to play golf on Pebble Beach.

Now here comes the argument that the wealthy already pay the bulk of taxes.....................

 

[BoilerUP]

I also don't harbor any pitty for someone who has to pay taxes for flying their G IV from MIA to the west coast to play golf on Pebble Beach.

This stereotype of the typical business aviation user and trip needs to die...especially because its about as accurate as saying "All airline pilots work 10 days a month and make $300,000."

The fact that a pilot would continue to be so ignorant of the many different facets in their industry continues to amaze me.

 

[Allen1]

The point was how disparate the treatment was. A blip is a blip. The difference in the taxes in this example is enough to pay one controller for two weeks. You are correct, business jets don't make a large impact by themselves. But your logic is flawed - We should do no single thing if it, by itself, does not fix the problem.

There is no one solution to the problem all of the fixes are cumulative. At the busiest airports we will need to do all of the things people are talking about. This is not a question of doing one thing or another. At the busiest airports we need to prohibit GA, implement slot and gauge restrictions, implement ADS-B, redo the airspace, AND implement RNP approaches. If we only do one or two of these things it will only push the problem out and nothing will be fixed.

It is ridicules that a Citation with 2 pax on board lands at LGA in a slot that could have been filled with a 737.

Later

Yeah because that spot would really go to a 737 more likely an RJ or saab. If GA has to bear more of the tax burden then they have every right go into LGA. You can't make them pay more and then ban them from the airports they're paying for. Don't tell me most the money doesn't get spent at the major airports. I fly to all the podunk airports all the time and there can't be much money being spent there because some of them are pretty crappy. I'll be all for GA paying more when they also use that money to fix up all the small to medium size airports and staff those airports with control towers too. But you airline dumb S?!ts don't want that you still will want all the money spent on the major airports and things for the airlines to use. Don't say GA rides on the coat tails of the airlines when most the places I fly to don't even have a control tower and the taxiways are so ********************ty you bouncing up and down on the taxi.

 

[BoilerUP]

At the busiest airports we need to prohibit GA

At "the busiest airports" general aviation accounts for less than 5% of operations. In the NYC area for example, banning bizav from LGA or EWR isn't going to do anything to reduce the total number of aircraft, and thus flow delays, departing over WHITE or ELIOT.

It is ridicules that a Citation with 2 pax on board lands at LGA in a slot that could have been filled with a 737.

Why is that "ridiculous"? As far as the Port Authority is concerned, NetJet's landing fees are just as good as those of an airliner...probably even more so because Warren Buffett actually pays his bills.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Anyone interested in the debate should read Jim Whitehurst's testimony on behalf of the ATA to Congress.

http://www.airlines.org/government/...itehurst+on+Aviation+Trust+Fund+Financing.htm

First - he is not targeting "General Aviation" as we are used to the term. I don't know what AOPA is all upset about. Unlike Boyer, most AOPA members do not have their own jet.

In particular, from the beginning we have said that piston-driven general aviation should continue to be supported by General Fund contributions, along with military, air ambulance and other public aircraft.

This is his arguement for a change in tax

According to data compiled by the FAA and certified by the IRS, airlines and their customers generated well in excess of 90 percent
3 of the taxes and fees that went into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund in FY2005, yet the FAA Cost Allocation Report shows that airline operations account for less than 73 percent of ATC costs.
4 In contrast, the most recent FAA data suggest that high-performance general aviation aircraft (including air taxis and fractional-ownership jets),5 which typically use the same airspace and ATC services as airlines, contributed 6 percent of total trust fund revenues6 but drove an estimated 14-19 percent of ATC costs.

The inequity is even more readily apparent when one compares the taxes and fees paid for one flight by a commercial passenger airline to the taxes paid for a flight on the same route by a private corporate aircraft. A commercial flight from Washington, D.C. to Fort Lauderdale, a distance of under 1,000 miles, would generate around $1,434 in taxes and fees, assuming a load factor of 75 percent. A private Cessna C750 carrying four passengers would pay just $112. That’s more than a tenfold difference. The same aircraft on a flight from Washington, D.C. to New York City would pay $1007 and $26, respectively, while a transcontinental flight from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles would generate $1,897 from the commercial airline and just $287 from the corporate jet.

The disparity between who pays and who imposes costs is just as stark when it comes to airports – almost one-third of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) dollars go to airports with no commercial service.

-------------

My opinion is that the FAA is diverting the arguement. The FAA should be held responsible for failing to get their own future ATC system running. This system has been funded several times and is over 10 years behind schedule. ADS-B has been operational, it just has not been implemented.

We should also look at the Constitution of the United States which tells us Congress should have the power to tax and spend. If we allow individual agencies of the Executive Branch to continue down this road, what is next, the Army raising taxes for its own wars? Obviously that is an absurd example but in reality we elect Representatives to oversee the spending of our money. The FAA is making a grab for money that avoids the Congressional oversight provided by our Constitution.

The ATA is going along with the FAA on this - probably to try to limit very light jets and fractionals from further eroding their high end business. However, the ATA would be better served in my humble opinion by demanding to know why - after ten years and BILLIONS of dollars the ATC system of the future is not already up and running.

The airlines are kidding themselves if they think a 10% tax increase is going to do anything to get business av out of their way in New York. Just like higher fuel costs, or RVSM, the biz jet guys will pay their money and keep on flying.

 

[Allen1]

Guys- it is quite simple. If it is a revenue flight (Part 135, etc.) they should pay taxes. It isn't right for one group (airlines) to shoulder the entire burden. I also don't harbor any pitty for someone who has to pay taxes for flying their G IV from MIA to the west coast to play golf on Pebble Beach.

Now here comes the argument that the wealthy already pay the bulk of taxes.....................

I don't pitty the friggen airline passenger that has to pay taxes on a 200 dollar ticket from New York to LA. Some of you guys no absolutely nothing about the otherside of aviation and the benifits it brings to the U.S. It's not all about rich people flying on vacation. I probably carry more buisness men and woman around than the vacationing golfer. But keep drinking the kool aid your CEO's are giving you and hoping that GA will pay more so you can get a raise, which would never happen. The CEO's you trust so much on this issue would pocket all the cash anyway.

 

[tracearabians]

Read not red and proposed not propposed !!

 

[~~~^~~~]

Boyd also covers the issue this week.

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm

 

[Allen1]

Taking a stand does not work these days with our current political leaders. Not trying to start a political debate but recent history has proven it time and time again. So if strikes do nothing, unions have no power. We have to win this fight by playing management's game and that is the game of economics. I am not trying to screw anyone. All I am saying is that I will not be supporting AOPA's effort to fight this change. This change will result in a better career for anyone who choses to fly as a job because it makes a greater barrier to entry for new pilots. Nothing personal...just good old free market supply and demand working for professional pilots for once.

It is funny how airlines are arguing for this. They do not see what kind of problems this will cause them with the pilot groups in the very near future. I can't wait!

I hope your airline goes out of buisness or lays you off and your forced to work in GA maybe then you could actually gain some perspective about things. What makes you so sure you're going to be getting the jobs. Typical airline pilot that has to fly a big ole airliner and thinks he's a better pilot because of it. I hate to burst your bubble though the airlines are doing this simply to put pressure on the fractionals but our customers aren't leaving even if they have to pay more. They probably won't even notice the increase. Enjoy your future furlough!

 

[Willy21]

Using furloughs as a punch line isn't funny Allen1. Looking at you profile I am guessing you were ACA/Independence and you know all to well the tough times a furlough can bring. We can all be on the street at any time.

I think we all need to step back and look at this from the outside looking in. What were we taught about the national airspace system when we were learning to fly. It is a first come first serve basis. (Airline management doesn't understand that, if you question that look at their cartoon) I think GA should be responsible for their share of the cost, (NetJets paid over $60 million in '06 fees) but keeping them out of the airspace is not the sollution. They have just as much right to be at LGA, EWR and all of the other busy airports as much as Delta, American and United.

I think airline management is trying to spin this for their own golden parachute. The high end business passenger that gives the airlines the highest margins have left the airlines due to the TSA, RJ's, massive hub and route closings and overall bad customer service. (I see this at least twice a week) The high end businessmen are not going back and to me it looks like airline managemnet wants to push out the competition by calling on Capital Hill. If the airlines see their tax break and profits go up do you really think Mr Arpy (a light aircraft owner and AOPA memebr if I remember right) and his equals at other airlines are going to pass that down to you?

The airspace is first come first serve and GA has just as much right to make money in the airspace system as the airlines.

 

[Jetsetter]

I hope your airline goes out of buisness or lays you off and your forced to work in GA maybe then you could actually gain some perspective about things. What makes you so sure you're going to be getting the jobs. Typical airline pilot that has to fly a big ole airliner and thinks he's a better pilot because of it. I hate to burst your bubble though the airlines are doing this simply to put pressure on the fractionals but our customers aren't leaving even if they have to pay more. They probably won't even notice the increase. Enjoy your future furlough!

Wow, you are a real class act...You have some very serious mental issues, I would seek professional help ASAP. Wishing someone would lose their job is one of the sickist things I have ever read on this board.

You need to appologize, then seek help.

 

[Lear70]

Snowbum,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your comments are your genuine thoughts and not just flamebait. (For a minute, I thought I was reading InstructorDude's nonsense.)

Where do I begin?? If you think for one minute that props will remain exempt once the user fee infrastructure is put into place (a la Canada and Europe), you're sadly mistaken.

What other Transportation sector is financed completely by users fees? If you think this is a good idea ("The users should pay to use the infrastructure on a pay as you go system"), then why don't we make every mile of highway in the country a toll road? The same logic you are using applies to this example. Those that don't own a car shouldn't pay any taxes used to construct roadways since they obviously don't benefit directly from them. Let all the drivers pay tolls to drive. Great thinking.

The ATC system (in it's current form) was put in place for the airlines. If you grounded all GA flights that use IFR services, would the FAA be able to close many towers? Would they be able to lay off many controllers? Of course not!!! The GA component does not impact the ATC system in any meaningful way when it comes to additional costs to handle them. The infrastructure required to keep 135/121 ops has to be in place whether or not GA is in the picture.

As a longtime AOPA/EAA member that someday hopes to be able to afford my own aircraft and pass the real joy of flying on to my kids, I fear uninformed people such as yourself will turn the US GA experience into the unaffordable mess the rest of the world has.

Regards,

EXCELLENT POST! Couldn't have said it better myself.

My dream aircraft is a Beech Staggerwing or similar aircraft to teach my son when he's old enough. I have no interest in seeing fees squash that dream, too and I have no reason to believe those fees wouldn't bleed over into all G.A. aircraft.

Lastly, you're living in a DREAM world if you don't think the RJ's are part of the problem. Listen on the radio going into LGA, DCA, ATL, LAX... you maybe hear ONE G.A. jet for every 20 Flagships, Comairs, Freedoms, etc.

Operating ONE 737/A320 takes the place of 2 RJ's. Imagine the ATC environment if you reduced the number of RJ's by 50%... Think we would be having the same conversation?

 

[BOOZENEWS]

Taking a stand does not work these days with our current political leaders. Not trying to start a political debate but recent history has proven it time and time again. So if strikes do nothing, unions have no power.

The unions DO still have power. Yea, they might be banned from a formal strike but delaying every flight by an hour or telling mgmt if they don't agree to our terms that we will fly faster and lower thereby costing them more in fuel the longer they play games.

You've gotta get creative and find ways to cleaverly work around not being able to strike. Believe me, this will get the message out!

As to anyone who believes a word that comes out of these greety CEO's mouths has got some serious problems and probably shouldn't be trusted to fly passsengers! You must be smoking some really good crack if you think that fares would be lowered or a pay raise would happen if the airlines are able to eliminate the ticket tax. Nuff said!

 

[ivauir]

Maybe someone should ask Southwest to stop getting their pos 737's up to 410 and doing .73. They've made the biggest speed bump there is.

Um .... what are you talking about?

 

[CFI2766]

No, the quick fix is also the long term fix. Airlines need to raise ticket prices when their costs go up. Consumers don't blink when they have to pay increased prices at the pump, or their groceries cost more because of transportation costs, but the airlines can't seem to grasp that concept.

This is the obvious answer, that is, to raise ticket prices, but it is unfortunatetly slightly simplistic.

The consumer has repeatedly chosen price as the most important factor in air travel. They care about the quality of their travel experience only after price. The cheapest tickets come on the backs of concessionary labor agreements, especially after the last downturn of 9/11. When the workforce can take no more, you have the pilot shortages we see now.

The airlines with the lowest costs, have the ability to offer the lowest prices on tickets. As time progresses, a company's costs increase. Yesterday's cheapest carrier is today's labor darling, which is tomorrow's next airline to furlough because a new airline with lower costs steps in.

To make air travel a more predictable, less painful experience, more barriers to entry into the 121 market should be put in place, and, frankly, more barriers to exit need to be removed from the 121 business.

Flame away folks, but dispute the logic.

On a different note, the airlines are being unbelievably shortsighted on this issue. The death of GA in America will guarantee that pilot labor costs will skyrocket in the immediate future. As the system exists now, they don't pay the ticket taxes, and, are able to offer fecal wages to a pool of 'free' applicants that show up to the airline's door legally qualified to work. If GA dries up, this will end. Hiring minimums can only go so low; once cockpits go unfilled when airlines will hire applicants with wet commercial tickets, they will have to revert to airline sponsored ab-inito training.